Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 09:03:13 -0800 From: Devin Teske <devin.teske@fisglobal.com> To: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9 Message-ID: <8C3EC4C9-2354-4791-A40C-F4CDC07E371E@fisglobal.com> In-Reply-To: <20120119164628.GC21488@hemlock.hydra> References: <BLU160-W54C133B8003EF140C41EF7AE860@phx.gbl> <loom.20120119T094302-811@post.gmane.org> <8397.74345881796$1326968162@news.gmane.org> <loom.20120119T113323-535@post.gmane.org> <20120119164628.GC21488@hemlock.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 19, 2012, at 8:46 AM, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:41:37AM +0000, inquiz wrote: >> Eduardo Morras <nec556 <at> retena.com> writes: >>=20 >>> ...=20 >>> I think that a full/complete update of the old installer to add it=20 >>> support GEOM, ZFS, scripting and more newer features will consume=20 >>> more manpower and resources than create a new one from scratch, where= =20 >>> the devs aren't chained by old code, backwards compatibility, old=20 >>> restrictions and old point of views. This way, is easier correct=20 >>> bugs, new features, simplify the installation and even automate it to= =20 >>> this new installer than try to add them to the old one. >>>=20 >>> As always, i suppose that any ideas and help are welcome. >>> ... >>=20 >> If devs decided that there are good technical and other reasons to retire >> the old installer, then that's fair enough. >> But then the new installer has to be at least equal in features, functio= nality, >> and overall quality. >=20 > . . . or provide the ability to select the old installer at boot time, > perhaps. Let's not turn this into a false dilemma; I don't see why we > can't have our cake and eat it too for a while. >=20 Before sysinstall is simply "made available" as an option, it first needs t= o be taught how to handle a monolithic txz file because the structure of th= e system has changed. Also... sysinstall expects to boot into a RW filesystem, and I don't know y= et whether the architecture has changed in this respect. If bsdinstall does= n't boot into an MFS, then having the boot loader set vfs.root.mountfrom.op= tions to "rw" is of little effect (for example, if you're booting directly = into an ISO 9660 filesystem which can't be made writable -- unionfs aside). So, whatever prompt the user is given to choose between sysinstall and bsdi= nstall... said prompt best be pretty early in the game (if we're going to f= ork to two different operating environments: MFS versus ISO 9660). --=20 Devin _____________ The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidentia= l. If you are not the intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message an= d all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any ma= nner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. In addition, please be aware= that any message addressed to our domain is subject to archiving and revie= w by persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8C3EC4C9-2354-4791-A40C-F4CDC07E371E>