On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:50:10PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
boot.flp is actually useful on sparc64 because you can dd it to a disk
from solaris and then boot off it to install. I'm happy with having
the option of not building it if it saves time but please make it an
option.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:39:14PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:50:10PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
boot.flp is actually useful on sparc64 because you can dd it to a disk
from solaris and then boot off it to install. I'm happy with having
the option of
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:07:30PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 11:57:58AM -0400, Jake Burkholder wrote:
Apparently, On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:16:43AM +0300,
Ruslan Ermilov said words to the effect of;
A similar change would be in order for sparc64. Patch
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003 at 11:55:10AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:07:30PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 11:57:58AM -0400, Jake Burkholder wrote:
Apparently, On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:16:43AM +0300,
Ruslan Ermilov said words to the effect
A similar change would be in order for sparc64. Patch is
attached, please review. The net effect is that we save
huge CPU times in release.9 and do not create the useless
boot.flp floppy image (the sparc64/mkisoimages.sh script
doesn't need it).
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:53:53PM -0700, Ruslan
Apparently, On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:16:43AM +0300,
Ruslan Ermilov said words to the effect of;
A similar change would be in order for sparc64. Patch is
attached, please review. The net effect is that we save
huge CPU times in release.9 and do not create the useless
boot.flp
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 11:57:58AM -0400, Jake Burkholder wrote:
Apparently, On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 09:16:43AM +0300,
Ruslan Ermilov said words to the effect of;
A similar change would be in order for sparc64. Patch is
attached, please review. The net effect is that we save
huge
