Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:07:58 -0800 From: Garrett Cooper <gcooper@FreeBSD.org> To: Devin Teske <dteske@vicor.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-sysinstall@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Installer Roadmap Message-ID: <AANLkTi=i0F65uM=Xvez7OknOxUu0eH_Bg=SCBwgwTY2e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <816E26D1-C34D-4A40-BA4F-6C486D622DAD@vicor.com> References: <4D35CFFB.3010302@freebsd.org> <201102211612.51233.josh@tcbug.org> <EA1368DF-9728-4492-B1FC-5F7C2B521DE7@vicor.com> <201102220103.20158.josh@tcbug.org> <D51E46BA-8902-4C42-A785-7EBF9F7A9B44@vicor.com> <20110222205741.GA34103@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <6A5ECC9D-9EF4-4331-9BB0-E14FE6087D53@vicor.com> <AANLkTi=VeTkHhwTO%2BTxvAphk=N3U5UE%2BS_t=ihPb=2t1@mail.gmail.com> <816E26D1-C34D-4A40-BA4F-6C486D622DAD@vicor.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:26 PM, Devin Teske <dteske@vicor.com> wrote:
>
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 7:41 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Devin Teske <dteske@vicor.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:57 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2011-Feb-22 02:50:54 -0800, Devin Teske <dteske@vicor.com> wrote:
>>>>> That's the operative word here ("supports"). Lord help us when that
>>>>> changes to "requires" (that is to say, if/when the FreeBSD kernel
>>>>> becomes legacy-free with respect to supporting fdisk/disklabel
>>>>> partitioned disks).
>>>>
>>>> When that does come, it will probably be driven by BIOS and hardware
>>>> vendors dropping support for MBR. =A0Current disks are at the upper
>>>> limit of what MBR can be support (and that's after several revamps of
>>>> MBR). =A0Since GPT already provides a superior feature set without MBR=
's
>>>> limits, the next step will be to just drop MBR support. =A0And when it
>>>> does come, FreeBSD needs to be ready with an installer that can cope
>>>> with non-MBR disks.
>>
>> While I love a good discussion (and there have been a number of good
>> points for either side on here), should we agree to switch the default
>> over to bsdinstall, leave sysinstall in (lumps or no lumps), then over
>> the period of the next 2~3 major (that amounts to 4~6 years) releases,
>> and retire sysinstall to the happy hunting grounds? sysinstall didn't
>> take up that much space on the release media I thought, and it might
>> be doable to map both sets of media so that sysinstall can work in
>> harmony on bsdinstall's release media?
>>
>> Preparing custom releases to use the sysinstall init_path isn't that
>> bad, so it would at least give the legacy folks time to transition
>> over while us guinea pigs burn in the new wax :)...
>>
>> Sound good?
>
> Love it. Absolutely love it. You are a uniter, sir (tips hat)!
Well, it's just a proposal. It needs to be presented to a) re@, b)
they need to tentatively accept, and someone needs to a) do the work
of integrating both pieces together and b) ensure it works in both
cases, c) test, test test, d) commit.
All of this needs to be done before 9.0-RELEASE.
So I wouldn't say "success!" just yet, but we're on the right path.
Switching stuff overnight is impossible for something like sysinstall.
I'm having to deal with similar issues transitioning acquisition MIBs
over to the acquiree company's style and requirements.
Providing an ample transition plan is one of the great things I've
noticed about BSD anyhow in areas like these :)... it shows real
planning and architecture.
Thanks,
-Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTi=i0F65uM=Xvez7OknOxUu0eH_Bg=SCBwgwTY2e>