Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:45:04 +0100 From: S Roberts <stacey@vickiandstacey.com> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com>, Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: install touching mbr Message-ID: <20100405114504.00006188@unknown> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1004031541350.11914@wonkity.com> References: <20100403174812.59c40c99.matheus@eternamente.info> <20100403205856.GA20454@icarus.home.lan> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1004031541350.11914@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 15:44:50 -0600 (MDT) Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote: > On Sat, 3 Apr 2010, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 05:48:12PM -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote: > >> I just installed a 8.0R amd64 from memstick. when asked, I said to > >> leave mbr untouched. when I rebooted, it was freebsd bootloader > >> that was on control. this options is not what I think it should, > >> or there is really a issue here ? > > > > I can confirm this behaviour. Someone may have broken something > > when tinkering around in that part of sysinstall (since the > > Standard vs. BootMgr options were moved around compared to previous > > releases). > > Not sure how to repeat the bug, but it's been there at least a few > months: > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0909262030060.13303 > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?58c737d70909262054k7c7b1402w4f9c902fdca2640c > Sooo.., which **IS** the correct option to leave the existing MBR untouched??? Regards, S Roberts > -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100405114504.00006188>