Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:37:05 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r226305 - head/release Message-ID: <4E988151.2090701@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4E95D3D3.4070405@freebsd.org> References: <201110121534.p9CFYP0E072134@svn.freebsd.org> <4E95D070.4030403@FreeBSD.org> <4E95D3D3.4070405@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/12/2011 10:52, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > On 10/12/11 12:37, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 10/12/2011 8:34 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >>> Author: nwhitehorn >>> Date: Wed Oct 12 15:34:25 2011 >>> New Revision: 226305 >>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/226305 >>> >>> Log: >>> Missed file in r225937 (sysinstall removal). >> I, and from my reading others, asked you to revert the removal of >> sysinstall. Isn't this moving in the wrong direction? :) >> > > I said I'd be open to it, but thought it wasn't too important since it > will stay in 9 and removed it in the first place after getting several > requests to do so. There wasn't any response after that. The ensuing discussion was about the installer. The point that I attempted to reiterate was that my concern is that there is no substitute for sysinstall's post-installation system configuration features, and until there is we should keep it around. Sorry if I wasn't clear. > Are you requesting these commits be reverted? I'm requesting that sysinstall remain in the base until there are replacements for all of its functionality. So just to be 100% clear, yes, I'm asking you to revert its removal. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E988151.2090701>