From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Jan  2 21:28:56 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id VAA12939
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 21:28:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id VAA12934
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 21:28:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id VAA02773; Tue, 2 Jan 1996 21:28:31 -0800
To: Jon Loeliger <jdl@jdl.com>
cc: obrien@cs.ucdavis.edu (David E. O'Brien),
        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD Hacker's list)
Subject: Re: X for install 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Jan 1996 23:02:46 CST."
             <199601030503.XAA02277@chrome.jdl.com> 
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 1996 21:28:30 -0800
Message-ID: <2771.820646910@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> This sounds to me like the same general goal as the separation of
> the hardware detection process during boot -- part of the detect,
> semi-probe, negotiate, allocate, attach process that we've often
> discussed.  Can the same core be used for both the normal UNIX boot
> process and for the initial system config/install process?  Or am
> I totally in the weeds here?

If coverage was complete enough (e.g. *all* the useful devices were
detected and reportable somehow) then I certainly don't see why not!
I'd kill for a decent "here's where everything is" interface in
sysinstall, and it wouldn't really matter to me where the detection
happened - by the time you've invoked sysinstall, you've pretty much
finished (or certainly should have) all the probing and configuration.

					Jordan