From owner-freebsd-sysinstall@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 25 22:30:09 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-sysinstall@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156E9106566C for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:30:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF77E8FC08 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:30:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q0PMU8PL087459 for ; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:30:08 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q0PMU8MP087456; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:30:08 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:30:08 GMT Message-Id: <201201252230.q0PMU8MP087456@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-sysinstall@FreeBSD.org From: CeDeROM Cc: Subject: Re: bin/164281: bsdinstall(8): please allow sysinstall as installer option X-BeenThere: freebsd-sysinstall@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: CeDeROM List-Id: Sysinstall Work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:30:09 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/164281; it has been noted by GNATS. From: CeDeROM To: Devin Teske Cc: "bug-followup@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: bin/164281: bsdinstall(8): please allow sysinstall as installer option Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 22:02:26 +0000 Hello Devin and thank you for your response! :-) Having that option would be great, unless its too much work to prepare two separate install methods if you say they need different boot method. I was told bsdinstall replaced sysinstall because it has new features unavailable to sysinstall and its better to maintain. Now I also see more about their difference and that it is not possible to simply put bsdinstall as sysinstall option. I can understand that change and I can understand this makes no bigger sense to develop both of the installers anymore at the same time as they work in a totally different way from system perspective and if the bsdinstall is really better. Right now this is clear for me those are two different programs based on two different mechanisms. I was just suprised bsdinstall was passed and replaced the good installer without implementing existing sysinstall functionalities first (i.e. does not allow to perform fresh install over existing one, set installation options, choose media before commit, etc), and this is very important from user perspective. Now its already in production, so it should develop rapidly and bring the good sysinstall functionalities again soon :-) Btw. are there any comparison documents/articles between functionalities of old boot method used by sysinstall and the new boot method used by bsdinstall to see the advantages of the new method? :-) Best regards! :-) Tomek