a...@netbsd.org wrote: > On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 07:47:12PM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote: > > a...@netbsd.org wrote: > > > Module Name: src > > > Committed By: ad > > > Date: Sat Apr 4 10:38:00 UTC 2009 > > > > > > Modified Files: > > > src/distrib/utils/sysinst: bsddisklabel.c > > > > > > Log Message: > > > - Default to UFS2 if the platform can boot from it. > > > > Should we reject UFS2 for root partition > > if MD boot loader doesn't support it (like sparc64), or > > If you can fit it into the MD code in sysinst why not. > Ideally sparc64 would have a workaround.
bootblk for sparc64 (written in forth?) doesn't recognize UFS2 superblock (yet). > > MD sysinst doesn't handle ffsv2 primary boot (like alpha and pmax) ? > > alpha and pmax seem unmaintained and as far as I can tell don't boot/work, > so I don't care. They have bootxx_ffsv2, but sysinst implicitly install bootxx_ffs. In any case, __HAVE_UFS2_BOOT in types.h seems ambiguous for me. Isn't it better to have some other macro in sysinst/arch/${MACHINE}/md.h ? --- Izumi Tsutsui