Darren J Moffat wrote: > Bart Smaalders wrote: >> Darren J Moffat wrote: >>> Jerry Gilliam wrote: >>>> Proposal >>>> ---------- >>>> Support a command-line argument to bootadm(1M) to specify the client's >>>> platform implementation for boot administration of a client. >>>> >>>> Analogous updates to the create_ramdisk and extract_boot_filelist >>>> utilities, invoked by bootadm, are needed. >>>> >>>> The diskless administration tools such as smosservice(1M) are >>>> aware of a client's platform and can invoke bootadm appropriately. >>>> The miniroot construction process uses the root_archive tool >>>> and would not be impacted by this change. >>> >>> What are the valid values for platform ? >>> >>> In particular for x86 does this allow making a distinction between >>> "i386" and "amd64" ? >>> >> >> There is no difference between the two; Solaris installs both 32bit >> and 64 bit binaries >> when installing Solaris x86. > > Yes but you could have a smaller boot archive on systems not capable of > running 64 bit (and also likely to have less memory) if a distinction on > platform was allowed. >
We build two separate boot archives already. /platform/i86pc/amd64/boot_archive /platform/i86pc/boot_archive - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance barts at cyber.eng.sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/barts "You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird."
