Subject: Re: Status of LFS?
To: David Laight <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Simon Burge <email@example.com>
Date: 02/15/2005 09:12:31
David Laight wrote:
> > When I first did lfs boot support for x86 you used to have to do
> > something like:
> > newfs_lfs -O 256 /dev/rwd0a
> > installboot -b 32 /dev/rwd0a /usr/mdec/bootxx_lfsv2
> > The -O to newfs_lfs says to start the filesystem 256 sectors after the
> > start of the disk, which leaves some room to put the primary bootstrap,
> > and then the -b 32 tells installboot to just blat the bootstrap starting
> > at block 32.
> Erm -b doesn't mean that (I don't think it ever has!).
Hmmmm. From installboot(8):
-b s1bno Install primary at block number s1bno instead of the default
location for the machine and file system type. [alpha, pmax,
Note the [alpha, pmax, vax] at the bottom. I did this too long ago,
obviously the memory is failing :-/
> Starting the fs anywhere other than 8k is a PITA - you need to be VERY
> careful to ensure that any old superblock (eg from an FFSv1 fs) is
> overwritten. Otherwise mount and/or fsck WILL treat the disk as FFSv1
> with the expected consequences for your data.
Ouch. Back before the bootblocks were split up there was no option to
boot lfs any other way (on x86). Hopefully not a problem now that we
have split bootblocks. Did you test LFS (v1 or v2) for booting?
Simon Burge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
NetBSD Support and Service: http://www.wasabisystems.com/