Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 11:40:31 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: grog@lemis.de, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: More nits Message-ID: <199511011940.LAA23130@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <844.815252532@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Nov 1, 95 11:02:12 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > [FYI to everyone else: Greg is writing an installation guide for FreeBSD] > > > This is a known bug, and it would appear that nobody is particularly > keen to change it. I beat my chest about it several times and > everybody involved just sort of waffled on it until the subject died > down again. Until then, I may just take the automount of the CDROM > out of /etc/fstab and have people do it by hand. I hate this, but I > lack the time to go fix whatever stupidity it is in our system that > prevents the system from coming up whenever a CDROM isn't in the > drive. Unless we fix it, /cdrom is coming out of the default fstab > in 2.1. Better a system that comes up without a CDROM rather than > one that doesn't! how about adding the 'noauto' option to the fstab line? we support it now.. (it's in the sources) (though not the docs as far as I can see :( ) > > > 2. The SCSI tape driver will rewind a non-rewinding tape under some > > circumstances (I think it's when it detects an EOM). I have a tape > > with multiple files which is readable, but the second-to-last tape > > mark seems to be flaky and an 'mt fsf 3' tends to go one mark too > > far. It was a real pain trying to read in the tape, since the > > driver kept rewinding it. > > Hmmmmm! I'll let some of the SCSI hackers on our list field this one. > I don't actually use tapes in my daily life, so I've no direct > experience with this behavior. I have a problem with this.. it might be the drive itself..... I don't think WE ask it to do that.... > > > 3. I'd like to see a few more things on the standard installation. > > Linux "everything" really does install everything; FreeBSD > > "everything" misses out things which I consider essential, such as > > bash, less and emacs. > > The problem is that all 3 packages you name aren't distributions at > all, they're packages. If you're saying that I should make up some > "fake distributions" that do nothing more than try to add packages, I > guess that's possible. What do the others think? packages should be loadable as if they were just additions to the normal OS they shouldn't be separate (except for being optional) >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199511011940.LAA23130>