Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 16:37:29 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> Cc: re@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: miniboot.iso (was: Re: Floppies for ALPHA) Message-ID: <XFMail.20030804163729.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20030803153523.GB72914@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03-Aug-2003 David O'Brien wrote: > On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 12:35:42AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: >> On 03-Aug-2003 David O'Brien wrote: >> > On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:42:49PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: >> >> OK, the attached (trivial) patch can be used to create the >> >> miniboot.iso. Its contents is identical to what goes on the >> >> miniinst.iso, except for NOT putting any distributions, docs, >> >> and ports. >> >> >> >> The uncompressed size for i386 is 46M, bzip2(1) compressed size >> >> is 16M, which I think many people can afford. (The size of the >> > >> > What in the world is on this thing to be 46MB?!?!?!? All 3 .flp's added >> > together aren't this large. >> >> It has GENERIC plus modules plus kernel.debug for CURRENT snapshots, >> not BOOTMFS. > > Then it has the wrong image for what we need. It's the same kernel. We just don't wast time building it twice. I recall in the past that you were highly upset with wasting time building things multiple times during release to the point of adding hacks to the kernel build bits that I didn't like. >> >> Jake, a question for you: can this miniboot.iso image be used on >> >> sparc64 like on Alpha (as Wilko demonstrated) instead of the ugly >> >> boot.flp image? >> > >> > Why is making boot.flp "ugly"?? >> >> Because it uses a stripped down kernel with less support, and why >> go through all the heartache to limit it's size when you can just >> use a stock generic kernel? >> >> T DAVID PLZ 2 B RELAX K PLZ THX > > Whatever. You guys keep missing the idea and I can only guess it is from > lack of using a lot of non-i386 hardware. Whatever. I'm trying hard to > make things better here from the mess we have today. Erm, earth to David: I do happen to have some non-x86 hardware that I have built native releases and done test installs with for both alpha and sparc64. I'm not as clueless as you claim on this one, and I am watching what happens here. Please chill. > Sorry I can't read your mind on what is "ugly" about about boot.flp on > the sparc. Since dokern.sh didn't sed out anything from GENERIC, I'd > love to hear an explanation on how the sparc64 boot.flp kernel is > "stripped down" and isn't a "stock generic kernel". Why build an exact duplicate of GENERIC, that's wasteful. Besides, boot.flp is intended to be a floppy. I think what you want is to create a UFS disk image of /R/cdrom/boot that is suitably bootable after the iso.1 stage. Calling that disk image a floppy image is just wrong, since I don't imagine that sparc64 machines have some magical 10mb floppy disk device. -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20030804163729.jhb>