On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 07:43:33PM +0100, Nicolas Joly wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 12:15:32PM -0600, Richard Rauch wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 07:07:53PM +0100, Nicolas Joly wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 11:33:10AM -0600, Richard Rauch wrote:
 [...]
> > Do you wind up with a bootable CD, then?  Or is there anything magic about
> > the way that a "2 boot floppy" setup interacts with making a boot CD?
> > 
> > (I can handle it if the CD doesn't boot, but it'd be nice if it would.  And
> > I seem to recall that the CD boot mechanism---at least for i386, and presum-
> > ably for amd64---is based on a "big" floppy image.)
> 
> I never made a bootable CD; i often use a set of floppies
> instead. It's a little slow, but works fine with a network install
> (sets cross-builded from another i386 host).

I haven't used floppies in years.  CD-R and bootable CDs made me lazy
fast.  (^&


> > (Of course, if I trimmed the INSTALL kernel, that might help, too, yes?)
> 
> CD boot mecanism is based on 2.88M-sized images
> (cf. src/distrib/amd64/floppies/bootfloppy-big/Makefile).

That's what I thought.  Thanks for confirming.


> In that case, you'll need to restore the big floppy size to the
> original value (5760), ... and play with the INSTALL kernel.

Another option is to not boot with the resulting CD (and maybe truncate
the boot file).  I have a bootable CD that I burned in November.

Of course, the chief virtue of a CD for install media is that you should
only need one for a complete install (unless you are SuSE, Red Hat, or...).
Having to use one for booting and another for installing is not so great.

Also, with the older boot/INSTALL, I can look forward to doing that

  fsck_ffs -b 32 -c 4

...afterwards.


Anyway.  Thanks again.

-- 
  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  http://www.olib.org/~rkr/