Subject: Re: renaming /boot to /boot_
To: None <email@example.com, jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
From: Ross Harvey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/29/1999 20:02:07
> From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
> In message <email@example.com>,
> Chris G. Demetriou writes:
> >"approximately the same as for ffs." it's the same directory
> >lookup/symlink handling goop in both.
> Directory lookup is needed regardless, and #ifdefing away symlink
> support sounds reasonable to me: dont use symlinks to 2nd-stage
> bootblocsk (installboot could check for that). Is the problem that
> the Alpha LFS bootblock was already so close to the edge of the cliff,
> that looking into a /boot directory directory leaves it teetering on
> the edge?
Chris did more than just the original alpha bootblocks.
IIRC, you said that you don't read source-changes, so you may not be aware
that quite recently Chris completely rototilled the alpha boot blocks and
installboot. A big part of that project was specifically cramming the ffs
and cd9660 name-lookup primary into 7.5K. The LFS work was even more recent.
Furthermore, he answered your question, in part, earlier in this thread.
It's easy at the hand waving, concept stage, to declare a broad equivalence
between root and subdirectory searching, but Chris noted here that one
practical difference is the new requirement for a more functional close
This probably isn't the most critical issue, at some point I bet Chris
would rather search subdirectories than argue about it.
But I, for one, am willing to take his word for it. Therefore, alpha boot
blocks will not be searching subdirectories. :-) :-)