"Jordan K. Hubbard" wrote:
>
> > The pnp line is a "userconfig" type of information. It must, then,
> > be put on a file to be loaded with "-t userconfig_script" flag. But,
> > as I said, I have little familiarity with userconfig stuff. I think
> > it is the commands you would type if you booted -
> The pnp line is a "userconfig" type of information. It must, then,
> be put on a file to be loaded with "-t userconfig_script" flag. But,
> as I said, I have little familiarity with userconfig stuff. I think
> it is the commands you would type if you booted -c and entered the
> commands manually
Chuck Robey wrote:
>
> > If you are running -stable
>
> This is the -current list, and I'm running current. I don't have the
> file "userconfig_script" nor /kernel.config.
Just to be on the safe side... :-)
> > OTOH, you might solve your problem just by adding the following two
> > lines to /b
> This stuff oughta be somewhere, soonest. If it's not man page, at least
> a temporary distillation of it in a file in sys/boot, to be tossed once
> there's a man page.
*chuckle* It's like taking candy from a baby, I tell you!
I can't help but notice that Chuck is a committer, and under the ru
On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, Andrzej Bialecki wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 1999, Chuck Robey wrote:
>
> > > load kernel
> > > load -t userconfig_script /kernel.config
> > >
> > > and then putting your pnp configuration line on /kernel.config (if
> > > it is not there already).
> >
> > This is good info for
On Sat, 13 Mar 1999, Chuck Robey wrote:
> > load kernel
> > load -t userconfig_script /kernel.config
> >
> > and then putting your pnp configuration line on /kernel.config (if
> > it is not there already).
>
> This is good info for current, right? And I don't need to worry about
> "userconfig_s
On Sun, 14 Mar 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> If you are running -stable
This is the -current list, and I'm running current. I don't have the
file "userconfig_script" nor /kernel.config.
, you'll be able to use it if you import
> -current's sys/boot and sys/sys/linker.h, cd /sys/boot ; make de
Chuck Robey wrote:
>
> Daniel, I'm having a little trouble getting this to work. I don't see
> any kind of example loader.conf, or loader.conf.local, I made the file
> you asked, below (/boot/loader.rc) ... I didn't have a loader.conf, so
> on boot, it issues me an error on that. I have a new p
On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> A new loader.rc mechanism has been introduced. Nothing has changed
> with loader, mind you, and you can continue to use your current
> loader.rc (if any) unchanged, but Jordan thinks it might be better
> to install a loader.rc using the new mechanism
Robert Watson wrote:
>
> So this is actually just a general response to the whole thing--one of the
> things I actually dislike about rc.conf is its flexibility: the user can
> put anything script-wise they like into it. My temptation would be to
> reduce the flexibility: to have a simple name:va
So this is actually just a general response to the whole thing--one of the
things I actually dislike about rc.conf is its flexibility: the user can
put anything script-wise they like into it. My temptation would be to
reduce the flexibility: to have a simple name:value configuration file
(with app
p...@originative.co.uk wrote:
>
> Hmm, feeling of deja-vu here :-)
It was on purpose. :-)
> Why do we need three levels of config files? Can't we make do with two?
Yes, two are enough.
> Configuration of the system is becoming more and more of a horrible mess of
> spaghetti.
That's an unavoid
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel C. Sobral [mailto:d...@newsguy.com]
> Sent: 10 March 1999 03:47
> To: curr...@freebsd.org
> Subject: HEADS UP: new loader.rc stuff
>
> Meanwhile, the new loader.rc stuff, for those who want it. It is
> modeled after rc.conf files. We now have a
> /boot/d
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>
> All this including of files is going to get damn confusing
> for newbies.
Hopefully, they won't have to touch them directly, and just use
sysinstall.
> It's also unlike anything i've ever seen before...
Actually, it reminds me of the Linux boot loader a little tiny
b
On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
> A new loader.rc mechanism has been introduced. Nothing has changed
> with loader, mind you, and you can continue to use your current
> loader.rc (if any) unchanged, but Jordan thinks it might be better
> to install a loader.rc using the new mechanism
15 matches
Mail list logo
