At Wed, 9 Apr 2003 19:36:04 +0000 (UTC), "David Laight" wrote:
> When you get to the second stage bootstrap (which handles multple
> fs types, but still has some size constraints) it makes sense to
> have the single file supporting ufs and ufs2.

Certainly, it's _possible_ to do it.

But if it makes the build procedure more difficult, with no actual
gain (i mean, the last-stage bootstraps in general are _not_ crunched
for space, and really it's not much space anyway), why do it?

Looks like lfsv1 and lfsv2 may be treated as i was suggesting ffs and
ufsv2 (ugh; bad naming) should be treated (i.e., as independent file
systems).


Heck, it's possible to make a single file -- .o or .c -- support both
ffs and lfs.  i mean, look at the diffs between the files as of, say,
a year ago.  At least, it would have been possible then.  Now, I don't know.



cgd