On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 03:30:20PM +0100, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 09:10:37PM +0100, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 01:13:54PM +0100, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> > > Reading this, I get the impression that the only correct way to boot
> > > into
> > > NetBSD is to use the bootblocks with its two stage approach. Is this
> > > correct? AFAIK, that concept is also tied to the amiga graphics, which
> > > is a problem if there is no monitor supporting their output. But maybe
> > > I missed an important detail.
> >
> > You missed the bootblock starter, which can start a bootblock from running
> > AmigaOS.
>
> I know. However, you didn't answer the question :-/ (or I don't understood
> the anwser) Since you wrote that a you can implement a specific feature
> only because there is two-stage boot process, it sounds that booting
> directly into the kernel won't work after you implemented your change.
> Thus the question is still open: is it legal(supported) to boot directly
> into a kernel bypassing bootblocks and boot.amiga?
Personally, I'd rather see the bootblocks used. If somebody wants to
contribute an AmigaOS-startable booter, I'd not object, but I'd prefer
to have it NetBSD-buildable so that the base of the release can be built
without access to AmigaOS (and without access to an Amiga).
I once hacked aout2bb into something producing a simple loadseg()able
file; maybe I can do this with elf2bb so that we can produce something
that uses most of the boot.amiga code.
Regards,
Ignatios
Attachment:
pgp2pH9CRd32M.pgp
Description: PGP signature