--gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 03:30:20PM +0100, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 09:10:37PM +0100, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 01:13:54PM +0100, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> > >   Reading this, I get the impression that the only correct way to boo=
t into
> > >   NetBSD is to use the bootblocks with its two stage approach. Is this
> > >   correct? AFAIK, that concept is also tied to the amiga graphics, wh=
ich
> > >   is a problem if there is no monitor supporting their output. But ma=
ybe
> > >   I missed an important detail.
> >=20
> > You missed the bootblock starter, which can start a bootblock from runn=
ing
> > AmigaOS.
>=20
>   I know. However, you didn't answer the question :-/ (or I don't underst=
ood
>   the anwser) Since you wrote that a you can implement a specific feature
>   only because there is two-stage boot process, it sounds that booting
>   directly into the kernel won't work after you implemented your change.
>   Thus the question is still open: is it legal(supported) to boot directly
>   into a kernel bypassing bootblocks and boot.amiga?

Personally, I'd rather see the bootblocks used. If somebody wants to
contribute an AmigaOS-startable booter, I'd not object, but I'd prefer
to have it NetBSD-buildable so that the base of the release can be built
without access to AmigaOS (and without access to an Amiga).

I once hacked aout2bb into something producing a simple loadseg()able=20
file; maybe I can do this with elf2bb so that we can produce something
that uses most of the boot.amiga code.

Regards,
	Ignatios

--gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQE+IwnaPCRcZ/VMtk4RAt10AJ9HVZj+WdSQ7jIe7CRNrTTy8wX1MwCdF1vw
Gq/COZ9sIXhU2omPLMB33HE=
=uIGb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--gBBFr7Ir9EOA20Yy--