On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 12:13 PM Angelo Rossi <angelo.rossi.home...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First of all you can't endorse me with services I cannot fullfill just > because you're lowly sense of humor told this. What is the effect (or goal, for that matter) of sharing this information with a broad base of users? Surely it's for more people to have and be able to use that knowledge, no? Meanwhile there have been multiple threads between bugs@ and misc@ where people reported such single-filesystem setups as having problems and were told "don't do that; it's a bad idea; use a normal multi-FS setup". If supporting such setups wasn't your goal, it was not clear what your goal was from your original message. > Then if the right behaviour > for bootloader is to give error on this broken configuration it follows > that the i386 arch is broiken since it permits to boot from such "crazy" > partitioning scheme. For my longer explanation of resource limitations at the bootloader and how that interacts with testing the envelope, see here: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=154053727724928&w=3 Given that background, you should understand that adding extra checks to the bootloader to detect and give a clearer error message for these "crazy" setup will actually break *more* of them! There are trade-offs: we made the changes we did because we thought they were worth the cost. Breaking more systems just to tell people clearly that their setups are unwise seems like a bad trade-off to me, but maybe it's the Right Thing if it'll eliminate these threads. Philip Guenther
