Re: Silly question, why still stage1 separate from stage2?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 13:07 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> So I have a silly question, and it's ok to tell me I'm dumb, but I was
> thinking this morning, why do we still have stage1 vs stage2?  Stage1
> is pretty much about getting you stage2, or minstage2 right?  And in
> most cases where you're not booting from media, you're stuffing one of
> those two into ram right?  So why can't they be combined and just be
> one stage?

You don't have the second stage in RAM for NFS installs either.  Or
booting from the to-be-renamed-rescuecd.  And being able to have the
second stage _not_ in ram is a pretty big win as the second stage
continues to grow with things like fonts, translations, etc.  

If we were to go to a single stage, we'd need to go on a very serious culling 
spree or we'd have a substantial hit on our memory requirements.

Jeremy

_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list

[Index of Archives]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Legacy List]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]
  Powered by Linux