Re: Booting
On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 06:30:27PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote: Honestly? I'd really love to see GRUB achieve it's nominal purpose - GRand Unified Bootloader. Making it capable of compiling on, and booting, *BSD machines seems like a major step forward for it, and it shouldn't be all that hard - it's just one kernel and one primary filesystem (FFS) to make sure function, to support the vast majority of BSD-land. I think the best way is to make multiboot BSD kernel images. The multiboot standard is very flexible, it's included in the grub documentation. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpY6MLuhhfCR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Booting
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 12:16:46PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 05:25:12PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: I think the best way is to make multiboot BSD kernel images. The multiboot standard is very flexible, it's included in the grub documentation. That would indeed be nice. It also is not something I'm going to waste my time on. FreeBSD has a bootloader that works just fine. Works a lot like grub, in fact. However, there is a lot of extra environmental stuff that it does, and I'm not sure that grub could support that without a lot of extra code. IMHO, this is a case of fixing something that isn't broken. And at this point in time, it's just not worthwhile. This is certainly true. It's a wishlist item, it would be nice if all free kernels would use multiboot. I've heard that grub will at least be partly rewritten to make some new features possible, it might also be the extra environmental stuff but I'm not sure what you mean with it. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpTBovScl11f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Booting
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 01:07:36PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 06:55:26PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: This is certainly true. It's a wishlist item, it would be nice if all free kernels would use multiboot. I've heard that grub will at least be partly rewritten to make some new features possible, it might also be the extra environmental stuff but I'm not sure what you mean with it. It'd be nice, but I think the BSD's are going to be pretty skeptical. FreeBSD, in particular, has a very nice boot loader. I rather like it, it reminds me of OpenBoot. The man page for loader.conf describes some of the environment stuff I mentioned: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=loader.confapropos=0sektion=0manpath=FreeBSD+4.5-stableformat=html Reading quickly the things supported, I think those things can be passed from the loader to the kernel using the multiboot specification. FreeBSD doesn't need to abandon its bootloader and the way of doing things, just change it to use the multiboot specification. That way you could use the FreeBSD loader for every kernel and every multiboot-compliant bootloader for the FreeBSD kernel. Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgpV0Ak6Q3mU9.pgp Description: PGP signature
re: Booting
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 06:55:26PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: This is certainly true. It's a wishlist item, it would be nice if all free kernels would use multiboot. I've heard that grub will at least be partly rewritten to make some new features possible, it might also be the extra environmental stuff but I'm not sure what you mean with it. It'd be nice, but I think the BSD's are going to be pretty skeptical. FreeBSD, in particular, has a very nice boot loader. I rather like it, it reminds me of OpenBoot. that's because they've included a forth interpreter in the booter... i have these huge conflicting feelings on whether i find that extremely disgusting or extremely cool. :-)
