FreeLdr

[Samuel Bronson]

I am told that the sources for FreeLdr are all okay, except for the
some of the bootsectors having been pretty much just disassembled from
MS's. Is this true? If so, will someone please copy them over before I die
of impatiance? Its not like we need those bootsectors, anyway. I mean, a
lot of us on IRC have agreed that using GRUB to load FreeLdr is probably
our best bet for now, until someone gets around to customizing boot code
from GRUB or FreeDOS. Anyway, we don't need to worry about that until the
installation CD boots ;-).

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!

[Samuel Bronson]

On Fri, 03 Feb 2006 22:22:05 -0500, Samuel Bronson wrote:

>   I am told that the sources for FreeLdr are all okay,
> except for the some
>  of the bootsectors having been pretty much just disassembled from MS's. Is
>  this true? If so, will someone please copy them over before I die of
>  impatiance? Its not like we need those bootsectors, anyway. I mean, a lot
>  of us on IRC have agreed that using GRUB to load FreeLdr is probably our
>  best bet for now, until someone gets around to customizing boot code from
>  GRUB or FreeDOS. Anyway, we don't need to worry about that until the
>  installation CD boots ;-). 
crashfourit has posted a patch here:
http://www.reactos.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1311

Unfortunately it looks like the string and rtl libs need auditing, and
we'll also need ntoskrnl stubbed out with just the headers...

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!