Re: Boot-Floppies
> Matt Porter <mmporter@home.com> writes:
>
> > If a user is going to use something as archaic as a 1.44MB floppy to
> > install, it shouldn't be too much for them to use a split boot/root dual
> > floppy approach. That would leave a lot of space for the rootfs.
>
> Agree vehemently!
>
> > The majority of people will be using CDROM to boot, I'd imagine.
> >
> > On x86, El Torito allows 2.88MB right?
>
> Yup.
>
> > It seems the constraints we have are the following:
> >
> > * on all platforms we are limited to 1.44MB floppies (Special case #1)
> > * on x86 CD-ROM we are limited to 1.44/2.88MB boot images and any size
> > livefs we want (Special case #2)
> > * on PowerPC/PReP we don't have any CDROM limitations.
> > * what about others?
> >
> > Just looking at this it seems we only have to modify things for the
> > special case #1 since that is the only one that can't fit current size of
> > the boot/root images. If I understand El Torito incorrectly, please let
> > me know...
>
> It seems to me that we could have 1.44MB boot, 1.44MB root -- that
> would be 2 floppies, or else one 2.88 image for el torito.
>
> >From there either a double drivers floppy plus base floppies, or else
> a live filesystem on CDROM.
>
> All the other techniques (OS loader, ZIP, TFTP/NFS) could adapt based
> on this I believe.
>
> Can we agree?
>
> --
> .....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Agreed. I'm experimenting the root + boot pair from months. Insisting on
the single floppy solution would be only masochism, like insisting on the
interactive-only installation.
--
Massimo Dal Zotto
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Massimo Dal Zotto email: dz@cs.unitn.it |
| Via Marconi, 141 phone: ++39-0461534251 |
| 38057 Pergine Valsugana (TN) www: http://www.cs.unitn.it/~dz/ |
| Italy pgp: finger dz@tango.cs.unitn.it |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Reply to: