Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote: > On 2020-10-24, Kevin Shell <ksh...@gmx.com> wrote: > > The OpenBSD .iso image file is not > > hybrid image(both BIOS/UEFI iso9660 and USB boot drive support), > > Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD all produce hybrid iso images, > > OpenBSD produces a separate .img file, just choose the iso if you want an > iso, choose img if you want an image for a USB boot drive. > > Are you sure about NetBSD? I didn't check their ISO but they do provide > separate img files and there's no indication in the install guide that it > is hybrid. http://www.netbsd.org/docs/guide/en/chap-inst.html > > (Also, despite their hybrid iso, FreeBSD still sees the need to provide > a separate USB image). > > > I want to know why OpenBSD not do the same. :-) > > I guess nobody has seen enough benefit to changing things for it to be > worth spending the time A) implementing it (without using GPL tools) > and B) testing it on a wide variety of machines to make sure it doesn't > break something that currently works. > > B is the real problem of course.
There are two versions of this code, for the small and large install media. /usr/src/distrib/amd64/ramdisk_cd /usr/src/distrib/amd64/iso Someone who wants this should do it.
