[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: is rescue really the right word?

On Fri, Feb 11, 2000 at 06:15:48PM -0700, Randolph Chung wrote:
> keep in mind that i386 is in the minority here -- most of the other archs
> still have rescue and root on one disk afaik. on i386, the 2.88M disks are

No, and many of the other archs don't actually use floppies to boot from.
It makes even less sense on these architectures (the 68k list is forever
plagued with people asking whether they need to write the rescue disk to a
floppy in order to boot their Macintoshes, and how to go about doing this)

Also sparc and powerpc cannot do library reduction, so they don't have a
chance of fitting kernel+root.bin on a single 1.4M floppy (we are *very*
lucky that library reduction could be made to work on Alpha, as without it,
root.bin would not even fit on a floppy)

So, yes, I'm also in favour of naming them boot and root :)

Actually I would like it very much if it were possible to install the kernel
from files on a filesystem rather than a disk image.  Particularly on
diskless machines - the ramdisk hack to avoid loopback mounting doesn't seem
to work particularly well on my Macintoshes.

Also it's very frustrating on machines like Macintoshes, where installing
the kernel is irrelevant since it must be kept on an HFS partition, that not
being able to install the kernel stops the orderly progression of stages in
the installer.

Would it be possible to make installing the kernel and installing the
modules separate steps?  This wwould be very useful for such architectures
where the kernel does not need to exist on the root filesystem, but the
modules must.

Reply to: