Re: Test boot floppies (from CVS)
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 ?
Yeah, I was hoping to get some opinions on this with my other posts on the
subject. Failing that I figured I'd try it out to see if it causes problems
or not ... apparently it does :(
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
reason to use the 2.2 MILO. The other is that Ruffian appears to be better
supported in the 2.2.
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)
Oh, as to your earlier question, about leaving the System.map off the
rescue disk, that's where it typically gets installed from, but seeing as
i386 may be going with a different kernel on the rescue disk anyway, we'll
probably be installing the actual kernel from somewhere else too (I don't
really know how it's set up there - ask Randolph Chung, who's working on it)