Subject: Re: Any reason not to change bt0 to 0x334 for 1.2?
To: None <port-i386@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Mike Long <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/29/1996 14:43:02
>>Received: from localhost (giles@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nemeton.com.au (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA04383; Sat, 27 Apr 1996 16:30:34 +1000
>Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 16:30:33 +1000
>From: Giles Lean <email@example.com>
>On Fri, 26 Apr 96 20:55:23 EDT Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>> Does anyone see a reason to not change the location of bt0 for the 1.2
>> release? There probably isn't space to merge the kernels until there's some
>> kind of compressed kernel support in the boot blocks, but it couldn't _hurt_,
>Yes it can. :-(
>Systems now running bt0 at the 1.1 (and 1.0 and 0.9 ...) default of
>0x330 would have to have their hardware re-configured before they
>could use a 1.2 boot diskette or GENERIC kernel.
Pop open the case, flip a single DIP switch (at least on my BT445C).
You should be done in less than five minutes.
Mike Long <firstname.lastname@example.org> <URL:http://www.shore.net/~mikel>
VLSI Design Engineer finger email@example.com for PGP public key
Analog Devices, CPD Division CCBF225E7D3F7ECB2C8F7ABB15D9BE7B
Norwood, MA 02062 USA (eq (opinion 'ADI) (opinion 'mike)) -> nil