Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:15:51 +0100 (CET) From: Michael Reifenberger <mike@reifenberger.com> To: Lars Engels <lars.engels@0x20.net> Cc: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD-Current <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bsdinstall-amd64-20110313 remarks Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103211113030.51042@gw.reifenberger.com> In-Reply-To: <20110321100428.GN90300@e.0x20.net> References: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103210906001.48840@gw.reifenberger.com> <20110321100428.GN90300@e.0x20.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Lars Engels wrote: > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:04:28 +0100 > From: Lars Engels <lars.engels@0x20.net> > To: Michael Reifenberger <mike@reifenberger.com> > Cc: Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@FreeBSD.org>, > FreeBSD-Current <current@freebsd.org> > Subject: Re: bsdinstall-amd64-20110313 remarks > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 09:25:36AM +0100, Michael Reifenberger wrote: >> Hi, >> yesterday I tested the images listed in the subject and have the following >> remarks: >> >> - At least the memstick image contains an empty fstab >> - Does the usage of a "dangerously dedikated disklabel" give any advantage? >> - The usage of an UFS-Label for root mounting should be more flexible > - UFS-labeling does not work > > I let bsdinstall partition the disk automatically and edited the > proposed partitions to add labels, but after the first boot, neither > fstab nor /dev/label showed any labels. > I did not mean to use UFS-Labels for the bsdinstall partitioner. I meant the use of UFS-Labels for the memstick image itself. BTW: The UFS labels should show up under /dev/ufs/... The cd9660 labels should show up under /dev/cd9660/... Bye/2 --- Michael Reifenberger Michael@Reifenberger.com http://www.Reifenberger.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1103211113030.51042>