On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:17:32PM +0200, David N. Welton wrote:
> Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > that is a very poor idea. if you allow MacOS to mount the bootstrap
> > partition it **WILL** debless it rendering your system unbootable.
>
> MacOS X doesn't seem to mess with it.
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If you happen to have any, ahem, other operating systems, that
> > uses, say, HFS+, which linux doesn't handle well right now
> > (afaik), you can use this partition not only as a bootstrap, but
> > also as a place to exchange files between Linux, and t
On Wed, Apr 18, 2001 at 12:39:00AM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> Such partition should never be mounted under MacOS, or modified by hand.
> Use ybin to modify it. Don't put any kernels there. (the Apple_Bootstrap
> partition is not visible from MacOS anyway). And to those who will tell
> me tha
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 04:29:13PM -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
> Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > no 800K not 32MB. 32MB is a rediculous and absurd waste of space.
> > out of 800K less then 100 are actually used for yaboot/ofboot. (but
> > HFS requires a minimum of 800K)
>
> If
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 02:32:41PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 11:20:26AM -0700, Grant Miller wrote:
> > a small (32MB) partition with the type and name set to Apple_Bootstrap.
>
> no 800K not 32MB. 32MB is a rediculous and absurd waste of space.
> out of 800K less then 1
On 17 Apr 2001 16:29:13 -0700, David N. Welton wrote:
> Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > no 800K not 32MB. 32MB is a rediculous and absurd waste of space.
> > out of 800K less then 100 are actually used for yaboot/ofboot. (but
> > HFS requires a minimum of 800K)
>
> If you happen
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> no 800K not 32MB. 32MB is a rediculous and absurd waste of space.
> out of 800K less then 100 are actually used for yaboot/ofboot. (but
> HFS requires a minimum of 800K)
If you happen to have any, ahem, other operating systems, that uses,
say, HFS+, wh
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 11:20:26AM -0700, Grant Miller wrote:
>
> I don't think there is a bootable flag setting on Macs. What you do need is
wrong, there is a concept of a bootable bit in mac partition tables,
there is no userland utility that gives you much control of it, but
/sbin/quik knows
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 11:20:26AM -0700, Grant Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 10:52:10AM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 07:47:40AM +0200, Michel Lanners wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, sorry for not being clear, I did mean the first _bootable_
> > > > partition.
> > >
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 10:52:10AM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 07:47:40AM +0200, Michel Lanners wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, sorry for not being clear, I did mean the first _bootable_
> > > partition.
> >
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:42:43PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> > hmm,
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 07:47:40AM +0200, Michel Lanners wrote:
> >
> > Yes, sorry for not being clear, I did mean the first _bootable_
> > partition.
>
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 10:42:43PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> hmm, can more then on partition be marked bootable on mac tables?
>
> i am no
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 03:53:32PM +0200, Michel Lanners wrote:
>
> No idea. Paulus should know that...
clausen may know too..
> Absolutely. Don't ask me why they didn't just _fix_ the ROM proper,
> instead of burning a buggy ROM containg patches to these bugs...
because they could not give les
On 16 Apr, this message from Ethan Benson echoed through cyberspace:
>> Yes, sorry for not being clear, I did mean the first _bootable_
>> partition.
>
> hmm, can more then on partition be marked bootable on mac tables?
No idea. Paulus should know that...
> i am not sure how to unmark a partiti
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 07:47:40AM +0200, Michel Lanners wrote:
>
> Yes, sorry for not being clear, I did mean the first _bootable_
> partition.
hmm, can more then on partition be marked bootable on mac tables?
i am not sure how to unmark a partition as bootable.
> Here you are. Top part is wh
On 16 Apr, this message from Ethan Benson echoed through cyberspace:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 05:40:17PM +0200, Michel Lanners wrote:
>>
>> 7600/132, with G3/300 processor upgrade, OF version 1.0.5, booting from
>> internal SCSI disk. Note that OF 1.0.5 is broken (as far as we know) in
>> that y
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 05:40:17PM +0200, Michel Lanners wrote:
>
> 7600/132, with G3/300 processor upgrade, OF version 1.0.5, booting from
> internal SCSI disk. Note that OF 1.0.5 is broken (as far as we know) in
> that you can't select a partition to boot from; it will use the first it
> finds.
Hi Ethan,
On 15 Apr, this message from Ethan Benson echoed through cyberspace:
> Something else i am interested in is the OpenFirmware configuration
> required to successfully boot with quik on various models.
7600/132, with G3/300 processor upgrade, OF version 1.0.5, booting from
internal SCSI
17 matches
Mail list logo
