Re: Bigger boot block size?
From: Poul-Henning Kamp (phk_at_phk.freebsd.dk)
Date: 09/10/05
- Previous message: Poul-Henning Kamp: "Re: time_second vs. time_uptime"
- In reply to: Jung-uk Kim: "Re: Bigger boot block size?"
- Next in thread: Scott Long: "Re: Bigger boot block size?"
- Reply: Scott Long: "Re: Bigger boot block size?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 10:38:17 +0200
In message <200509091214.41429.jkim@FreeBSD.org>, Jung-uk Kim writes:
>Sigh... But bsdlabel(8) should be able to handle this case when '-B'
>option is given and first partition of the slice is UFS1, i. e., we
>keep 'historical' boot1/boot2 for a while and drop the support
>later. ;-)
Guys, bsdlabel has no future, we need to migrate to something
that is
A: 64 capable
B: supports more than 7/8 partitions
C: understands that metadata should not be exposed in-band.
-- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Poul-Henning Kamp: "Re: time_second vs. time_uptime"
- In reply to: Jung-uk Kim: "Re: Bigger boot block size?"
- Next in thread: Scott Long: "Re: Bigger boot block size?"
- Reply: Scott Long: "Re: Bigger boot block size?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|