On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 12:13 PM Angelo Rossi <angelo.rossi.homelab@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
No comments:
Post a Comment