Jason Thorpe wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Feb 1999 17:58:39 +1100 
>  Simon Burge <simonb@telstra.com.au> wrote:
> 
>  > Before anyone jumps up and down and says "go to 2 stage bootblocks!"
>  > (Jason included ;), we are moving toward this but are still aiming to
>  > have stage 1 live within the currently available bootblock space without
>  > resorting to some ugly nasty installboot-hack type scheme.
> 
> "GACK"
> 
> So, removing symlink support would really annoy me, as a _user_!  I
> OFTEN symlink kernels to /netbsd on my devel machines.
> 
> You should just use 2-stage boot blocks.  It just seems SILLY to hack
> and slash the boot block into a teeny area.  Especaily when you can
> do some really nice things in a larger boot block, like more easily
> determine the console (and just pass it to the kernel), etc...

I really didn't make myself clear on this...  I was only planning on
reducing functionality for the stage 1 bootblocks - all it has to do is
load /boot.  I think making a restriction on /boot not being a symlink
is reasonable - if we can fit that in later, then good.  Stage 2 however
will be all singing and all dancing.

There is _no_ plan to give less flexibility to the current pmax
bootblocks.

Simon.