Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:03:13 -0800
From:      Devin Teske <devin.teske@fisglobal.com>
To:        Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD 9
Message-ID:  <8C3EC4C9-2354-4791-A40C-F4CDC07E371E@fisglobal.com>
In-Reply-To: <20120119164628.GC21488@hemlock.hydra>
References:  <BLU160-W54C133B8003EF140C41EF7AE860@phx.gbl> <loom.20120119T094302-811@post.gmane.org> <8397.74345881796$1326968162@news.gmane.org> <loom.20120119T113323-535@post.gmane.org> <20120119164628.GC21488@hemlock.hydra>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help

On Jan 19, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Chad Perrin wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:41:37AM +0000, inquiz wrote:
>> Eduardo Morras <nec556 <at> retena.com> writes:
>>=20
>>> ...=20
>>> I think that a full/complete update of the old installer to add it=20
>>> support GEOM, ZFS, scripting and more newer features will consume=20
>>> more manpower and resources than create a new one from scratch, where=
=20
>>> the devs aren't chained by old code, backwards compatibility, old=20
>>> restrictions and old point of views. This way, is easier correct=20
>>> bugs, new features, simplify the installation and even automate it to=
=20
>>> this new installer than try to add them to the old one.
>>>=20
>>> As always, i suppose that any ideas and help are welcome.
>>> ...
>>=20
>> If devs decided that there are good technical and other reasons to retire
>> the old installer, then that's fair enough.
>> But then the new installer has to be at least equal in features, functio=
nality,
>> and overall quality.
>=20
> . . . or provide the ability to select the old installer at boot time,
> perhaps.  Let's not turn this into a false dilemma; I don't see why we
> can't have our cake and eat it too for a while.
>=20

Before sysinstall is simply "made available" as an option, it first needs t=
o be taught how to handle a monolithic txz file because the structure of th=
e system has changed.

Also... sysinstall expects to boot into a RW filesystem, and I don't know y=
et whether the architecture has changed in this respect. If bsdinstall does=
n't boot into an MFS, then having the boot loader set vfs.root.mountfrom.op=
tions to "rw" is of little effect (for example, if you're booting directly =
into an ISO 9660 filesystem which can't be made writable -- unionfs aside).

So, whatever prompt the user is given to choose between sysinstall and bsdi=
nstall... said prompt best be pretty early in the game (if we're going to f=
ork to two different operating environments: MFS versus ISO 9660).
--=20
Devin

_____________
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidentia=
l. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message an=
d all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any ma=
nner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware=
 that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and revie=
w by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8C3EC4C9-2354-4791-A40C-F4CDC07E371E>