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

[Jeremy Katz <katzj redhat com>]

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