Subject: Re: renaming /boot to /boot_
To: None <>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 09/30/1999 08:55:02
Jaromir Dolecek <> writes:
> > Before sounds right, and i think it should fit...
> Is there any reason why the code should look for /boot at all ?

As opposed to what?  not looking for anything, or just looking for

Given the alpha's track record of binary compatibility between the
primaries and secondaries, it's perfectly reasonable to think you
could just install a new primary.

also, who's to say, maybe the machine crashes right after you've
installed the new primary, or you forget to install a new secondary or
rename the primary to boot.${MACHINE}.

also, who's to say that the user learns that after the Flag Day
newly-installed bootstraps must be in the new place, and installs
theirs in the wrong place because that's what they've been doing for a

Why be extra-user-unfriendly, when a simple backward compatibility
measure probably isn't too hard?

Chris Demetriou - -
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.