Re: MILO size problems
Paul Slootman <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > e) We should be deprecating MILO anyway. The extra disk is only
> > necessary on MILO installs, and every other arch has separate
> > rescue and root disks now too... Also CD installs won't need any
> > disks.
> I have an XLT... need I say more :-/
Yeah :( Well, we have to support them.
For what it's worth dbootstrap is going to be a lot more friendly to
MILO installations too (it'll warn you about the need to make a FAT
partition, and probably I'll also have it install MILO and linload.exe
on a partition of your choice if you do "make Linux bootable directly")
> That reminds me, why aren't these images gzipped (or better bzip2'ed)?
> After all, we have gzip.exe (or had it) in the tools directory together
> with rawrite.exe for those that need to make floppy images from dos.
Hmm... In fact, I've been saying recently that we should just provide
linload.exe and the appropriate MILO separately (since this is how
it'll work for booting from CD). As it stands we have the same MILO
twice in the release directory.
Considering that linload.exe couldn't be found as a loose file at all
in slink, this would be an improvement :) I've actually had to make
MILO disks from linload+MILO on DOS (well, NT) machines in order to
recover my Alpha in the past.
Should we just do this?
David Huggins-Daines, Senior Linux Consultant, Linuxcare, Inc.
Linuxcare. Support for the revolution.