Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:48:22 -0800 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Cc: FreeBSD current mailing list <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: boot0cfg -s vs. GEOM_PART_*? Message-ID: <09A4377D-3275-45CA-AB7B-2C2722B51521@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20090221082155.T53478@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <20090217113718.N53478@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net> <725CDB16-7D31-42C9-924E-DB6B595BF071@mac.com> <20090221082155.T53478@maildrop.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 21, 2009, at 12:25 AM, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: > Thanks. I see boot0cfg no longer errors but I am not sure if it does > the right thing: > > boot0cfg -s 5 ad0 > (doesn't atter if it's 0 or 2 to the -s options) as boot0cfg -s doesn't set the active flag on partitions. It changes some magic offset in the boot code that is being interpreted by the boot code. > That leaves me to the question - what's the boot0cfg -s5 equivalent > with gpart? There's no equivalent to the -s option, because gpart doesn't interpret or understand the boot code. You can change the active partition with gpart though: # gpart set -a active -i <slice> ad0 FYI, -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?09A4377D-3275-45CA-AB7B-2C2722B51521>