Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 07 Jan 1999 14:04:15 -0800
From:      Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>
To:        Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
Cc:        cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/i386/conf Makefile.i386
Message-ID:  <36952F5F.2781E494@whistle.com>
References:  <199901072037.NAA22536@mt.sri.com> <Pine.BSF.3.95.990107124507.3875I-100000@current1.whistle.com> <199901072101.OAA22809@mt.sri.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Nate Williams wrote:
> 
> > changing the bootblocks is not always an option.
> 
> Sure it is.  If you can upgrade the OS, you can certainly upgrade the
> bootblocks.  I see you complain about this alot, but this is no harder
> than typing 'dislabel -B wd0' (or sd0..)
> 
> Besides, you can't boot off the old bootblocks with an ELF kernel
> anyway.
> 
> If you're willing to jump to an ELF kernel remotely, then you should be
> willing to upgrade the boot blocks remotely.
> 
> Nate

Nate you obviously didn't hear ALL of the discussion...

The Interjet upgrade process doesn't include code to upgrade the
bootblocks, so we (Whistle) are stuck forever needing to support
(in some way or other) the old bootblocks in the field. 

Interjet owners may upgrade their Whistleware(TM) at any time or 
they may decide to NOT upgrade it. We can't MANDATE that they
upgrade. We need to ensure that an Interjet sold 2 years 
ago can upgrade in 2001 to the latest whistleware(TM), 
however since the CODE installed in 1996 can't upgrade 
the bootblocks we need to ensure that the old bootblocks
can find something in the new release to boot. It can't be an elf 
kernel, so it will need to be an a.out 3rd stage loader that 
can boot the new elf kernel that will be in whatever release 
of WW we have in 2001. Obviously that old bootblock set
will be looking for a file called "kernel".
Since we really try to keep WW as close as possible to FreeBSD,
I just wish that FreeBSD as a whole considered the ability to 
run with old bootblocks more important, so that we didn't need 
to diverge as much..

Your comments are true. However they don't help me very much.
Of course it's not FreeBSD's job to make things easy for me, 
so that's ok, but I think that since Linux uses /Linux, and 
NetBSD uses /NetBSD and OpenBSD uses (I think) /OpenBSD, 
using /FreeBSD would make us more 'in line' with the others, 
and also backwards compatible with systems that are set up 
with old bootblocks.

No matter what FreeBSD does, we will probably have a 3rd stage 
loader called "kernel". We may also have an intermediate release
that you must upgrade to if your release is earlier than
some cuttoff point if you are upgrading beyond that point, so 
that you first upgrade to a version that knows how to upgrade 
the bootblocks, but consider that most of our custommers don't 
know what a 'byte' is before you make glib commnts such as "but 
this is no harder than typing 'dislabel -B wd0' (or sd0..)" 
and also consider that there is no shell interface.


Asking a custommer to upgrade twice in a row for a single upgrade
is a big 'custommer satisfaction' thing, that must be taken
very seriously.

If we are the ONLY people without a shell interface who face this
problem with embedded FreeBSD, then I'd be surprised.
(But maybe no-one else runs FreeBSD in such an embedded manner as 
we do).

julian

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?36952F5F.2781E494>