Subject: Re: i386 bootselector changes
To: William Allen Simpson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Luke Mewburn <lukem@NetBSD.org>
Date: 10/24/2003 14:01:16
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:13:14PM -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
| Bill Studenmund wrote:
| > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 05:03:54PM -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
| > > Since there are only 4 partitions on a drive, and rarely more than 2
| > > drives on a cable, and there's no need for any particular order or
| > > correspondence with the "slice"/partition #, I'd prefer 1-9,0,'-','='
| > > for serial bootblocks, and the old F1, F2, ..., F12 for laptop/desktop.
| > We now support partitions in extended partitions, so there are more than 4
| > partitions per drive. :-)
| Aagghh (slap), I didn't think of that. Surely, the plan isn't to
| support up to 13 boot blocks per drive? Times 4 drives?
The current method that the "boot selector" is implemented doesn't
support selecting anything other than the 4 primary partitions; there
just isn't the space in the MBR to implement anything fancier.