Re: Test boot floppies (from CVS)
On Mon 31 Jan 2000, David Huggins-Daines wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2000 at 05:15:15PM +0100, Christian Meder wrote:
> > Personally I'd prefer to keep the archspecific bootfloppies and just _add_
> > a generic target so people get more possibilities in case of problems
> > while booting.
> >
> > Any opinions from other Alpha users ?
> Can the 2.0 milos cope with 2.2-formatted filesystems? (i.e. sparse
> superblock, other features) In my experience they can't, so that was one
As the e2fstools formats the filesystems and not the kernel, it should
be trivial to work around this. As for the symlink stuff: it's nice to
have, but not a must.
> On the other hand, the 2.0 MILOs appear to be much better tested (the SuSE
> guy says the 2.2 ones are only really tested on 164LX and Ruffian)
FWIW: I've had zero success with the 2.2 MILOs on my XLT. The old 2.0
MILO I've had for years works fine.
Paul Slootman
--
home: paul@wurtel.demon.nl http://www.wurtel.demon.nl/
work: paul@murphy.nl http://www.murphy.nl/
debian: paul@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
isdn4linux: paul@isdn4linux.de http://www.isdn4linux.de/
Reply to: