On Thu, Sep 23, 2004 at 06:30:48PM -0400, Rick Thomas wrote: > > On Thursday, September 23, 2004, at 06:13 PM, Sven Luther wrote: > > >>I understand the size constraints. But isn't that the reason why > >>we added the "root-2" floppy? Would adding hfs and/or hfsplus kick > >>us over the edge into "root-3" land? > > > >We could indeed add it to root-2, but i would prefer to get the > >floppy loading > >work correctly before i do this rather cosmetic thing working. And > >hfs/hfsplus > >without ide/scsi driver is not really all that usefull, isn't it. > > > OK. I think see the logic. I'm not clear on what comes from where > as far as drivers and install components. Can you give me a > general picture? (Seemingly, "net-drivers" and "cd-drivers" are > obvious, but maybe not?) In particular, how are things that > *aren't* on a particular floppy retrieved, and how does it know > which of those to retrieve? Also, is there a general rule for what > goes on "root", "root-2", one of the "drivers" floppy, or over the > web?
They are not, we need to find out a rule for those. Floppies are mainly worked and tested on x86, which have not the size problem we have. In root needs to be everything to load the rest of the floppies (the floppy driver and retriever) and the most of the other stuff. That is the only contraint. We put in root-2 the rest of the non-driver stuff, in the net drivers the network drivers, and in the cd drivers the ide/scsi/cdrom/disk/filesystem stuff, needed to make the cdrom work and retrieve more stuff from there. For the rest of it, it is up to us to take decisions. Friendly, Sven Luther
