Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> On 2020-10-24, Kevin Shell <kshell@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.
No comments:
Post a Comment