Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:01:06 +0000 From: Frank Shute <frank@shute.org.uk> To: Devin Teske <devin.teske@fisglobal.com> Cc: 'Chad Perrin' <perrin@apotheon.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 9 Message-ID: <20120119200106.GB88862@orange.esperance-linux.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <04db01ccd6df$a6ebe3f0$f4c3abd0$@fisglobal.com> References: <BLU160-W54C133B8003EF140C41EF7AE860@phx.gbl> <loom.20120119T094302-811@post.gmane.org> <4EFDA3B50040906E@> <20120119164234.GB21488@hemlock.hydra> <04db01ccd6df$a6ebe3f0$f4c3abd0$@fisglobal.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:22:14AM -0800, Devin Teske wrote:
>
>=20
>=20
> >=20
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:15:08AM +0100, Eduardo Morras wrote:
> > >
> > > I think that a full/complete update of the old installer to add
> > > it support GEOM, ZFS, scripting and more newer features will
> > > consume more manpower and resources than create a new one from
> > > scratch, where the devs aren't chained by old code, backwards
> > > compatibility, old restrictions and old point of views. This
> > > way, is easier correct bugs, new features, simplify the
> > > installation and even automate it to this new installer than try
> > > to add them to the old one.
> >=20
> > I'm curious: Is this just speculation, or have you determined this
> > by reading
> the
> > source of the old installer? Old code means *tested* code, and
> > when it is
> well-
> > maintained it often means easily extensible code. Is that the
> > case for the
> old
> > installer, or is the older installer a crufty mess of "temporary"
> > fixes that
> became
> > permanent, as your statements seem to imply?
> >=20
>=20
> I believe the "difficulty in maintenance" stems primarily from the
> fact that the existing partition editor MAY have to be entirely
> rewritten to accommodate other root filesystem types (but even
> that's not entirely true -- if done right).
>=20
> Other than that, it's most likely just FUD and misperception that
> sysinstall(8) is either (a) hard to maintain or (b) hard to extend.
> -- Devin
To quote the manpage for sysinstall:
BUGS
<snip>
This utility is a prototype which lasted several years past its expira-
tion date and is greatly in need of death.
There are a (great) number of undocumented variables. UTSL.
I welcome the new installer. sysinstall was a piece of buggy garbage
that gave a pretty poor first impression of FreeBSD.
The new installer will get better with time.
Regards,
--=20
Frank
Contact info: http://www.shute.org.uk/misc/contact.html
--tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAk8YdoAACgkQHduKvUAgeK6l9ACg1RPvKZuAm9aYKPAKLxZBG5Bv
O9sAoIrhZjJloS+lpi09P/4pkfgn3U1D
=E6bc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120119200106.GB88862>