From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 5 14:27:49 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id OAA09667 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:27:49 -0700 Received: from wcarchive.cdrom.com (wcarchive.cdrom.com [192.216.191.11]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA09661 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:27:46 -0700 Received: from freefall.cdrom.com (freefall.cdrom.com [192.216.222.4]) by wcarchive.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA07717 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:28:28 -0700 Received: from localhost.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id OAA09644 ; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 14:27:18 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: freefall.cdrom.com: Host localhost.cdrom.com didn't use HELO protocol To: mal@algonet.se (Mats Lofkvist) cc: freebsd-hackers@wcarchive.cdrom.com Subject: Re: dos/floppy installation problems (2.0.5A, boot 950605 ~04:00) In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 05 Jun 95 22:39:29 +0200." <9506052039.AA06294@sophocles.> Date: Mon, 05 Jun 1995 14:27:17 -0700 Message-ID: <9639.802387637@freefall.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > - When choosing installation from a DOS partition, there seems to be > no way to tell where the files are. Worse, the fact that they are > expected to be under c:\freebsd\bin etc is not very clear neither > from the documentation, in the installation menus or from the error This is now very clearly documented in the installation guide! > - When I tried to install from floppies, I got a "you can remove the disk" > almost immediately for each disk. Where I wrong to assume floppy > install wants dos files on dos formatted disks?? (The "mount /dev/fd0?? > /mnt" in the debug window looked like a try to mount a ufs disk to me.) We've still got some boondoggles with the floppy install which we're working on right now! > to "unconfigure" an interface. I had to restart the installation to > get past this error. (Maybe there _is_ a way that I missed?) Hmmm. I will think about it. > - Finally when the system rebooted, there were no entries in /dev for > sd0s4e, where fstab wanted my /usr. I changed it to sd0e in the fstab. Finally fixed this one! > [- I once choose n for newfs (since I already had been trough that step > a number of times :-). Later on I got a message saying something like > "you choose a read only root partition". Bug? I'm not very sure about > the circumstances that resulted in this one, could be something else > but I got the impression it was because of the newfs n choice.] That's exactly why. Feature, not bug! :) Thanks for your feedback! We've fixed most of these problems and will hopefully have the last few fixed shortly! By the way, in case anyone is wondering why the level of functionality in sysinstall suddenly seems to have taken a step _backwards_ for the last 2 days, let me just say this: space. We ran out of it and have been frantically implementing some compaction ideas since. This naturally broke a few working things as their assumptions were rudely yanked out from under them. We're almost fully recovered from this now and can at least boot on 4MB machines again for our pains! :-) Jordan