Subject: Re: install could use some static binaries
To: Jason Thorpe <>
From: Jonathan Stone <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 08/06/1996 12:56:58
>However, IMO, edlabel should stay simple ... all of the "special" cruft 
>that's currently in disklabel(8) should go into the appropriate 
>machine-dependent portions of the kernel, and the disklabel ioctl suite 

re-thinking the ioctl disklabels sounds cool. But  relocating the
port-specific cruft from disklabel(8) into machine-dependent kernel
code makes it effectively impossible to "port" disklabel to label
a disks for one port from another machine architecture.

I'd actually like to see one (non-distribution) binary version
of disklabel that's capable of labelling a disk and installing
bootblocks for as many ports as practicable:  i386, sparc, alpha,
pmax, ...  

The rationale for this is to support installation by building a
ready-to-go disk for an architecture X machine on an architecture
Y machine.  Jason's suggestion sounds cool, except for apparently
ruling out this installation route.