On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:35:26AM -0400, Dave Miner wrote: > >I don't think "boot/amd64 is icky" is a strong enough argument for > >purposefully leaving this broken. > > To clarify, the reason why it's somewhat loathsome is that it's more > stuff that is in non-standard places and has to be handled specially by > live CD installs. Using the standard locations, it gets cleaned up > automatically by bootadm. It also reduces the amount of divergence > between the live CD and the installed system, which is a goal of the > live CD architecture.
I'm bemused: before the gate closed, the goal was to keep the paths the same across all architectures. Now it's to be the same as the installed system? Can you expand further on what problems are caused by keeping the path the same as it was? Is there some significant amount of code or special handling needed (pointers would be great) ? > The user base that are broken are sufficiently limited at this point I don't think it's possible to make that assertion as 2009.06 has not been released. It just doesn't make sense to me to purposefully introduce bugs for some vague benefit. /boot/boot_archive was presented as fait accompli, but now we have a chance to not break compatibility - I'd hope that such a choice is backed up by some very good reasons. regards john
