mrg@ wrote:
> > FAT (for ESP) is always LE so "-B endian" for makefs(8) is not necessary.
> >
> > (not sure if there is any "EFI on big endian CPU" system though)
>
> EFI runs in little-endian always, but efiboot can load a big
> endian kernel and run it properly. this is how we boot
> big-endia
> FAT (for ESP) is always LE so "-B endian" for makefs(8) is not necessary.
>
> (not sure if there is any "EFI on big endian CPU" system though)
EFI runs in little-endian always, but efiboot can load a big
endian kernel and run it properly. this is how we boot
big-endian on systems like rockpro64
> > Module Name:src
> > Committed By: mrg
> > Date: Sun May 15 00:05:24 UTC 2022
> >
> > Modified Files:
> > src/distrib/common/bootimage: Makefile.bootimage
> >
> > Log Message:
> > allow some invocations of expr(1) to "fail" - expr(1) returns "1" is
> > the expre
mrg@ wrote:
> Module Name: src
> Committed By: mrg
> Date: Sun May 15 00:05:24 UTC 2022
>
> Modified Files:
> src/distrib/common/bootimage: Makefile.bootimage
>
> Log Message:
> allow some invocations of expr(1) to "fail" - expr(1) returns "1" is
> the expression expands to "0" or
> Makefile.installimage refers to it before including Makefile.bootimage and
> this test was causing make to throw an error:
>
>
> https://nxr.netbsd.org/xref/src/distrib/common/bootimage/Makefile.installimage#41
>
> All other users (i386, amd64) of Makefile.installimage explicitly set
> US
On Fri, 29 May 2020, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
src/distrib/common/bootimage/Makefile.bootimage (included from
Makefile.installimage) already has "USE_MBR?= no" line.
Makefile.installimage refers to it before including Makefile.bootimage and
this test was causing make to throw an error:
https:
> Modified Files:
> src/distrib/common/bootimage: Makefile.installimage
>
> Log Message:
> Default USE_MBR to no
Is this necessary?
src/distrib/common/bootimage/Makefile.bootimage (included from
Makefile.installimage) already has "USE_MBR?= no" line.
---
Izumi Tsutsui
christos@ wrote:
> Why are they broken? The INSTALL kernel has ptyfs now? This is the
> wrong fix in the long run...
BTW no one takes PR install/47774 (and the following thread) even after 6.0.
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/source-changes-d/2012/09/thread1.html#005236
---
Izumi Tsutsui
In article <20150312044123.ee11...@cvs.netbsd.org>,
Soren Jacobsen wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>Module Name: src
>Committed By: snj
>Date: Thu Mar 12 04:41:23 UTC 2015
>
>Modified Files:
> src/distrib/common/bootimage: Makefile.bootimage
>
>Log Message:
>unbreak amd64 install images by
