Re: [9fans] changes in 9load

[Fco.J.Ballesteros <nemo@plan9.escet.urjc.es>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 316 bytes --]

The point it that it would be yet another place where you
have to put configuration in.

If configuration doesn't go away (eg by putting it in the thing
being handled, like in the disk used by venti), I prefer to
keep it all just in one place. I mean, If right now,
if I get 9load and a plan9.ini, I'm all set.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2492 bytes --]

From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] changes in 9load
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 20:03:16 +0200
Message-ID: <20030521200315.H7647@cackle.proxima.alt.za>

On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 07:39:57PM +0200, Fco.J.Ballesteros wrote:
>
> I meant a file system to access the /boot portion in the kernel image.
> But I think that's both clumsy and wrong (because you might change the kernel
> without doing a mk) and discarded the idea soon after considering it.

I don't like the thought of manipulating a disk image in this
fashion, myself.  But I really think your objective could be
achieved, as you point out, by storing the information in a config
file _other_ than plan9.ini on the boot medium.  Maybe a /n/init
mountpoint?  Would this really be less flexible than having the
knowledge in 9load?

++L