Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On 03/07/11 19:27, Freddie Cash wrote: On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: On 03/07/11 14:14, Freddie Cash wrote: Things that irritated me: - when you drop to a shell from the disk editor screen, it lists the instructions at the top, but then never repeats them ever again Can you suggest a better way to do this? In other words, when and in what circumstances would you want to see them again? It follows along with the next item, so I'll address them both below. - if you get lost in the disk editor shell and type "exit" to get back to the disk editor ... it thinks you are finished partitioning and carries on with the install, which then errors out due to no writable filesystems, requiring you to restart the entire process This is bad. I can modify it to check if a filesystem has been mounted at /mnt, and maybe if the fstab file exists and restart the disk editor menu if they have not. If something like the above is done, then the first item above is also handled. :) As in, if you forget the instructions, just exit the shell to go back to the disk editor, which then complains you don't have a mounted filesystem to install to, and then you can drop back to the shell. Maybe loop back to the beginning of the disk editor, where it asks you if you want to do it Guided, Manual, or Shell? Or something like that. The "Guided, Manual, Shell" is what I meant by "disk editor menu", so I agree with you entirely :) "Something" needs to go here to check for a mounted, writable filesystem to install to. :) On the flip side, the entire install process is short enough that it's not too onerous to restart it. - the disk editor is very limited, especially in its error handling; I found myself stuck in a loop trying to exit the screen without a / filesystem listed, but I was doing everything from the shell That's a clear bug. It should probably only validate the setup if 'Save' is selected. The issue of whether it should allow you to save without defining a / partition when invoked from a shell is a more complicated one, and one I'll have to think about (suggestions welcome). I don't recall there being a Save option, but maybe I skipped over it and just went to Exit. I'll have to look at this screen again. Using Save probably would have helpded. :) If you press Exit, it asks whether you want to Save, Abort, or Cancel. Abort exits the partitioner without making changes. I just modified this so that it will only try to validate the disk setup if you press Save -- you don't need a valid setup if you are bailing on the partitioner, after all. - screen flips between a nice blue background (the curses interface?) and a black background (running shell commands?) which is quite jarring and slightly confusing; - screen elements go from nicely centred (curses interface?) and then jump to the top-left corner of the screen (shell commands?) which is also quite jarring and slightly confusing Yes, this should be prettified. It's running a few things (passwd, adduser) in a chroot, and I figured getting things working there was more important than making them pretty for now. It's a minor nit, as sysinstall does the same. Maybe there's a way to use text input fields (like the DHCP screens, and adduser screens from sysinstall), then run the commands in the background, and just show error/success messages? [shrug] I know nothing about curses programming. :) Yeah, I need to find time/a good way to do this (or someone else can: patches are always welcome). Text fields would work well, and I think even just making the banner at the top of the screen blue would help. -Nathan ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > On 03/07/11 14:14, Freddie Cash wrote: >> Things that irritated me: >> - when you drop to a shell from the disk editor screen, it lists the >> instructions at the top, but then never repeats them ever again > > Can you suggest a better way to do this? In other words, when and in what > circumstances would you want to see them again? It follows along with the next item, so I'll address them both below. >> - if you get lost in the disk editor shell and type "exit" to get >> back to the disk editor ... it thinks you are finished partitioning >> and carries on with the install, which then errors out due to no >> writable filesystems, requiring you to restart the entire process > > This is bad. I can modify it to check if a filesystem has been mounted at > /mnt, and maybe if the fstab file exists and restart the disk editor menu if > they have not. If something like the above is done, then the first item above is also handled. :) As in, if you forget the instructions, just exit the shell to go back to the disk editor, which then complains you don't have a mounted filesystem to install to, and then you can drop back to the shell. Maybe loop back to the beginning of the disk editor, where it asks you if you want to do it Guided, Manual, or Shell? Or something like that. "Something" needs to go here to check for a mounted, writable filesystem to install to. :) On the flip side, the entire install process is short enough that it's not too onerous to restart it. >> - the disk editor is very limited, especially in its error handling; >> I found myself stuck in a loop trying to exit the screen without a / >> filesystem listed, but I was doing everything from the shell > > That's a clear bug. It should probably only validate the setup if 'Save' is > selected. The issue of whether it should allow you to save without defining > a / partition when invoked from a shell is a more complicated one, and one > I'll have to think about (suggestions welcome). I don't recall there being a Save option, but maybe I skipped over it and just went to Exit. I'll have to look at this screen again. Using Save probably would have helpded. :) >> - screen flips between a nice blue background (the curses >> interface?) and a black background (running shell commands?) which is >> quite jarring and slightly confusing; >> - screen elements go from nicely centred (curses interface?) and >> then jump to the top-left corner of the screen (shell commands?) which >> is also quite jarring and slightly confusing > > Yes, this should be prettified. It's running a few things (passwd, adduser) > in a chroot, and I figured getting things working there was more important > than making them pretty for now. It's a minor nit, as sysinstall does the same. Maybe there's a way to use text input fields (like the DHCP screens, and adduser screens from sysinstall), then run the commands in the background, and just show error/success messages? [shrug] I know nothing about curses programming. :) -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On 03/07/11 14:14, Freddie Cash wrote: On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: BSDinstall has acquired at this point its final form (prior to a future merge with pc-sysinstall), and I believe is ready to replace sysinstall on the 9.0 snapshot ISOs. Barring any objections, I would like to pull this switch 2 weeks from today, on the 14th of March. Bug reports would be very appreciated at this time. There are three known bugs currently, which will be fixed soon, so please don't report these: error reporting is not graceful if there are no writable disks in the system, you must select at least one optional component, and the doc build is not currently connected to the releases. After much finnaggling and gnashing of teeth around hardware (not related to installer), I have managed to get a bootable 9-CURRENT image with BSDInstall, and used it to get a bootable install of FreeBSD 9-CURRENT. :) Thanks for testing, and sympathies for the hardware trouble! Here are my thought and experiences using the new installer. Things I really like: - that the install CD is a LiveCD with a fully functional system; while it won't replace a Frenzy CD, it's very close - very streamlined install without a lot of extra "fluff" that just gets skipped anyway (like everything underneath Standard in the first sysinstall screen) - the ability to use features like GPT, gmirror, zfs right from the get-go - the ability to drop to a fully functional shell at various stages of the install, with access to proper man pages Things that irritated me: - when you drop to a shell from the disk editor screen, it lists the instructions at the top, but then never repeats them ever again Can you suggest a better way to do this? In other words, when and in what circumstances would you want to see them again? - if you get lost in the disk editor shell and type "exit" to get back to the disk editor ... it thinks you are finished partitioning and carries on with the install, which then errors out due to no writable filesystems, requiring you to restart the entire process This is bad. I can modify it to check if a filesystem has been mounted at /mnt, and maybe if the fstab file exists and restart the disk editor menu if they have not. - the disk editor is very limited, especially in its error handling; I found myself stuck in a loop trying to exit the screen without a / filesystem listed, but I was doing everything from the shell That's a clear bug. It should probably only validate the setup if 'Save' is selected. The issue of whether it should allow you to save without defining a / partition when invoked from a shell is a more complicated one, and one I'll have to think about (suggestions welcome). - screen flips between a nice blue background (the curses interface?) and a black background (running shell commands?) which is quite jarring and slightly confusing; - screen elements go from nicely centred (curses interface?) and then jump to the top-left corner of the screen (shell commands?) which is also quite jarring and slightly confusing Yes, this should be prettified. It's running a few things (passwd, adduser) in a chroot, and I figured getting things working there was more important than making them pretty for now. The last two may be limitations in the curses setup? But it would be nice if "shell command" I/O could be centred like the rest, and if the background could remain a single colour. Not huge issues, just things that irritated me. :) Overall, I am quite impressed with the new installer, as it is *just* an installer and not a system configuration creator (or breaker) like sysinstall. Now that I understand the "new world order" of GPT-based partitioning and booting, I think I'm going to like FreeBSD 9.0 a heck of a lot. ... off to play with dedupe and other ZFSv28 goodies ... Thanks! -Nathan ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > BSDinstall has acquired at this point its final form (prior to a future > merge with pc-sysinstall), and I believe is ready to replace sysinstall on > the 9.0 snapshot ISOs. Barring any objections, I would like to pull this > switch 2 weeks from today, on the 14th of March. > Bug reports would be very appreciated at this time. There are three known > bugs currently, which will be fixed soon, so please don't report these: > error reporting is not graceful if there are no writable disks in the > system, you must select at least one optional component, and the doc build > is not currently connected to the releases. After much finnaggling and gnashing of teeth around hardware (not related to installer), I have managed to get a bootable 9-CURRENT image with BSDInstall, and used it to get a bootable install of FreeBSD 9-CURRENT. :) Here are my thought and experiences using the new installer. Things I really like: - that the install CD is a LiveCD with a fully functional system; while it won't replace a Frenzy CD, it's very close - very streamlined install without a lot of extra "fluff" that just gets skipped anyway (like everything underneath Standard in the first sysinstall screen) - the ability to use features like GPT, gmirror, zfs right from the get-go - the ability to drop to a fully functional shell at various stages of the install, with access to proper man pages Things that irritated me: - when you drop to a shell from the disk editor screen, it lists the instructions at the top, but then never repeats them ever again - if you get lost in the disk editor shell and type "exit" to get back to the disk editor ... it thinks you are finished partitioning and carries on with the install, which then errors out due to no writable filesystems, requiring you to restart the entire process - the disk editor is very limited, especially in its error handling; I found myself stuck in a loop trying to exit the screen without a / filesystem listed, but I was doing everything from the shell - screen flips between a nice blue background (the curses interface?) and a black background (running shell commands?) which is quite jarring and slightly confusing; - screen elements go from nicely centred (curses interface?) and then jump to the top-left corner of the screen (shell commands?) which is also quite jarring and slightly confusing The last two may be limitations in the curses setup? But it would be nice if "shell command" I/O could be centred like the rest, and if the background could remain a single colour. Not huge issues, just things that irritated me. :) Overall, I am quite impressed with the new installer, as it is *just* an installer and not a system configuration creator (or breaker) like sysinstall. Now that I understand the "new world order" of GPT-based partitioning and booting, I think I'm going to like FreeBSD 9.0 a heck of a lot. ... off to play with dedupe and other ZFSv28 goodies ... -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:24:20 -0800 Freddie Cash wrote about Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer: FC> Or, does anyone have instructions on how to convert the ISO images FC> into memstick images? Preferably using a Linux station, not a FreeBSD FC> station. I use unetbootin (<http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/>) to create usb install media from iso images. Works for me. cu Gerrit ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On 04/03/2011 20:24, Freddie Cash wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn > wrote: >> BSDinstall has acquired at this point its final form (prior to a future >> merge with pc-sysinstall), and I believe is ready to replace sysinstall on >> the 9.0 snapshot ISOs. Barring any objections, I would like to pull this >> switch 2 weeks from today, on the 14th of March. >> >> A patch to the release infrastructure code can be found here (make release >> must be run with Makefile.bsdinstall using this patch to get non-sysinstall >> media): >> http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-release.diff >> >> Test ISOs for amd64 and i386 can be found here: >> http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-amd64-20110222.iso.bz2 >> http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-i386-20110224.iso.bz2 >> >> More recent test ISOs, as well as ones for other architectures, may be >> available at: >> http://wiki.freebsd.org/BSDInstall > Any chance of a memstick.img version being made available? > > Or, does anyone have instructions on how to convert the ISO images > into memstick images? Preferably using a Linux station, not a FreeBSD > station. > > I have a beautiful 24-drive system here just crying out for testing > 9-CURRENT and ZFSv28, but it doesn't have any bootable media except > USB sticks. And the 2011-01-* memstick snapshot of 9-CURRENT fails > with "can't create device node in /dev" errors when trying to newfs > the CompactFlash disk that will be /. > Its always worth having a go with the images from http://pub.allbsd.org/FreeBSD-snapshots http://pub.allbsd.org/FreeBSD-snapshots/amd64-amd64/9.0-HEAD-20110304-JPSNAP/cdrom/FreeBSD-9.0-HEAD-20110304-JPSNAP-amd64-amd64-memstick.img for example. Vince ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:49 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > BSDinstall has acquired at this point its final form (prior to a future > merge with pc-sysinstall), and I believe is ready to replace sysinstall on > the 9.0 snapshot ISOs. Barring any objections, I would like to pull this > switch 2 weeks from today, on the 14th of March. > > A patch to the release infrastructure code can be found here (make release > must be run with Makefile.bsdinstall using this patch to get non-sysinstall > media): > http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-release.diff > > Test ISOs for amd64 and i386 can be found here: > http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-amd64-20110222.iso.bz2 > http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-i386-20110224.iso.bz2 > > More recent test ISOs, as well as ones for other architectures, may be > available at: > http://wiki.freebsd.org/BSDInstall Any chance of a memstick.img version being made available? Or, does anyone have instructions on how to convert the ISO images into memstick images? Preferably using a Linux station, not a FreeBSD station. I have a beautiful 24-drive system here just crying out for testing 9-CURRENT and ZFSv28, but it doesn't have any bootable media except USB sticks. And the 2011-01-* memstick snapshot of 9-CURRENT fails with "can't create device node in /dev" errors when trying to newfs the CompactFlash disk that will be /. -- Freddie Cash fjwc...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On 03/03/2011 02:22, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: While working on this maybe it would be interesting to now use makefs instead of mkisofs, making installer generation 100% self hosting. makefs has recently been updating to a recent version from netbsd and now support iso9660, I already managed to create bootable livecd with it. That would be very nice. There is a weird situation now where you can't do ISO creation within 'make release' without also building ports, which is a lot of overhead. I "solved" this problem by scripting the ISO creation as a separate step, but it felt kludgy to me. Another nice improvement in this space would be to be able to select the specific ISO(s) that you want to create. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
2011/3/3 Paul Schenkeveld : > On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 09:36:58AM -0600, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >> On 02/28/11 09:20, John Baldwin wrote: >> > On Monday, February 28, 2011 9:49:07 am Nathan Whitehorn wrote: >> >> There are some changes to the distribution format involved in this >> >> patch, which are outlined below, and about which I would also appreciate >> >> feedback: >> >> - The src tree is not split up into pieces (e.g. ssbin) as with sysinstall >> > I would at least like to have src split up into two pieces: >> > >> > 1) would be equivalent of sbase and ssys of old distributions, so you could >> > choose to just install kernel sources along with the top-level Makefile >> > bits >> > to build kernels. I commonly install this subset on production machines >> > so I >> > can install a custom kernel in a pinch. >> > >> > 2) would be everything else in the source tree. >> >> This is a little bit tricky, since it involves inter-distribution >> dependencies which don't currently exist (e.g. you need sbase for ssys >> to be useful, and for severythingelse to be useful). I suppose that the >> top-level Makefile bits are small and could end up in both archives, >> where one can overwrite the other with the same thing. Would that solve >> your problem? >> -Nathan > > Why not put the toplevel Makefiles, README and perhaps COPYRIGHT and > MAINTAINERS file into base? This way there are no inter-dependencies > between src parts, /usr/src will consume only a modest bit of space > in base but documents wat ont would be able to do is sbase/ssys were > installed. > > Regards, > > Paul Schenkeveld > ___ > freebsd-a...@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > While working on this maybe it would be interesting to now use makefs instead of mkisofs, making installer generation 100% self hosting. makefs has recently been updating to a recent version from netbsd and now support iso9660, I already managed to create bootable livecd with it. regards, Bapt ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 09:36:58AM -0600, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > On 02/28/11 09:20, John Baldwin wrote: > > On Monday, February 28, 2011 9:49:07 am Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > >> There are some changes to the distribution format involved in this > >> patch, which are outlined below, and about which I would also appreciate > >> feedback: > >> - The src tree is not split up into pieces (e.g. ssbin) as with sysinstall > > I would at least like to have src split up into two pieces: > > > > 1) would be equivalent of sbase and ssys of old distributions, so you could > > choose to just install kernel sources along with the top-level Makefile bits > > to build kernels. I commonly install this subset on production machines so > > I > > can install a custom kernel in a pinch. > > > > 2) would be everything else in the source tree. > > This is a little bit tricky, since it involves inter-distribution > dependencies which don't currently exist (e.g. you need sbase for ssys > to be useful, and for severythingelse to be useful). I suppose that the > top-level Makefile bits are small and could end up in both archives, > where one can overwrite the other with the same thing. Would that solve > your problem? > -Nathan Why not put the toplevel Makefiles, README and perhaps COPYRIGHT and MAINTAINERS file into base? This way there are no inter-dependencies between src parts, /usr/src will consume only a modest bit of space in base but documents wat ont would be able to do is sbase/ssys were installed. Regards, Paul Schenkeveld ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
In article <4d6e6c43.4010...@freebsd.org> Nathan Whitehorn writes: >> Do you have a plan to add a floppy support as boot device? Pc98 >> machines which can boot from CD-ROM are very limited. So we usually >> use FD for boot media to install. > > No, I hadn't thought about this. If there aren't any machines you care > about that don't have a CD drive at all, we could try a > CD-bootloader-on-a-floppy as a solution. I think a totally floppy > based install would be very difficult to arrange, however. The boot-only-floppy image is very useful for us. --- TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:36:58 am Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> On 02/28/11 09:20, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, February 28, 2011 9:49:07 am Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> >> BSDinstall has acquired at this point its final form (prior to a future
> >> merge with pc-sysinstall), and I believe is ready to replace sysinstall
> >> on the 9.0 snapshot ISOs. Barring any objections, I would like to pull
> >> this switch 2 weeks from today, on the 14th of March.
> >>
> >> A patch to the release infrastructure code can be found here (make
> >> release must be run with Makefile.bsdinstall using this patch to get
> >> non-sysinstall media):
> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-release.diff
> > Hmm, does your installed world include the pre-built mergemaster database?
> > That should really be preserved.
> >
> > It happens here in the old release Makefile:
> >
> > # Install the system into the various distributions.
> > release.2:
> > cd ${.CURDIR}/..&& ${CROSSMAKE} distrib-dirs
> > DESTDIR=${RD}/trees/base
> > cd ${.CURDIR}/..&& ${CROSSMAKE} ${WORLD_FLAGS} distributeworld \
> > DISTDIR=${RD}/trees
> > sh ${.CURDIR}/scripts/mm-mtree.sh -F "${CROSSENV}" -D
> > "${RD}/trees/base"
> > touch ${.TARGET}
> >
> > I use a one-line patch locally to bootstrap etcupdate into the worlds I
> > package up at work via a similar one-liner.
>
> And this is why sending out patches for review is a good idea. I've
> updated my code to call into this script, though it would be nice if,
> say, make distribution handled this. Thanks for pointing it out.
>
> >> Test ISOs for amd64 and i386 can be found here:
> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-amd64-20110222.iso.bz2
> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-i386-20110224.iso.bz2
> >>
> >> More recent test ISOs, as well as ones for other architectures, may be
> >> available at:
> >> http://wiki.freebsd.org/BSDInstall
> >>
> >> Bug reports would be very appreciated at this time. There are three
> >> known bugs currently, which will be fixed soon, so please don't report
> >> these: error reporting is not graceful if there are no writable disks in
> >> the system, you must select at least one optional component, and the doc
> >> build is not currently connected to the releases.
> >>
> >> There are some changes to the distribution format involved in this
> >> patch, which are outlined below, and about which I would also appreciate
> >> feedback:
> >> - The src tree is not split up into pieces (e.g. ssbin) as with sysinstall
> > I would at least like to have src split up into two pieces:
> >
> > 1) would be equivalent of sbase and ssys of old distributions, so you could
> > choose to just install kernel sources along with the top-level Makefile bits
> > to build kernels. I commonly install this subset on production machines so
> > I
> > can install a custom kernel in a pinch.
> >
> > 2) would be everything else in the source tree.
>
> This is a little bit tricky, since it involves inter-distribution
> dependencies which don't currently exist (e.g. you need sbase for ssys
> to be useful, and for severythingelse to be useful). I suppose that the
> top-level Makefile bits are small and could end up in both archives,
> where one can overwrite the other with the same thing. Would that solve
> your problem?
Hmm, my thinking is ssys would include sbase, and severythingelse would
require ssys. That is already true since libc needs syscall.mk from the
kernel sources anyway. From a user perspective you end up with three
choices: no sources, kernel sources, or all sources.
--
John Baldwin
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On 03/02/11 10:06, TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro wrote:
In article<4d6bb5e3.6020...@freebsd.org>
Nathan Whitehorn writes:
BSDinstall has acquired at this point its final form (prior to a
future merge with pc-sysinstall), and I believe is ready to replace
sysinstall on the 9.0 snapshot ISOs. Barring any objections, I would
like to pull this switch 2 weeks from today, on the 14th of March.
A patch to the release infrastructure code can be found here (make
release must be run with Makefile.bsdinstall using this patch to get
non-sysinstall media):
http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-release.diff
In Makefile.bsdinstall:
+cdrom:
+ echo kernel_options=\"-C\"> ${DISTDIR}/release/boot/loader.conf
+ sh /usr/src/release/${TARGET}/mkisoimages.sh -b FreeBSD_Install
${DISTDIR}/release.iso ${DISTDIR}/release
+ rm ${DISTDIR}/release/boot/loader.conf
${TARGET} must be ${TARGET_ARCH} because pc98 and sunv4 don't have
mkisoimages.sh script.
I was thinking of just copying the i386/mkisoimages.sh and making the -G
behavior the default. It seems to me to make more sense to use MACHINE
than MACHINE_ARCH for this, since pc98 seems to have different
requirements than i386. We could just copy the sparc64 install script
for sun4v.
Do you have a plan to add a floppy support as boot device? Pc98
machines which can boot from CD-ROM are very limited. So we usually
use FD for boot media to install.
No, I hadn't thought about this. If there aren't any machines you care
about that don't have a CD drive at all, we could try a
CD-bootloader-on-a-floppy as a solution. I think a totally floppy based
install would be very difficult to arrange, however.
-Nathan
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
In article <4d6bb5e3.6020...@freebsd.org>
Nathan Whitehorn writes:
> BSDinstall has acquired at this point its final form (prior to a
> future merge with pc-sysinstall), and I believe is ready to replace
> sysinstall on the 9.0 snapshot ISOs. Barring any objections, I would
> like to pull this switch 2 weeks from today, on the 14th of March.
>
> A patch to the release infrastructure code can be found here (make
> release must be run with Makefile.bsdinstall using this patch to get
> non-sysinstall media):
> http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-release.diff
In Makefile.bsdinstall:
+cdrom:
+ echo kernel_options=\"-C\" > ${DISTDIR}/release/boot/loader.conf
+ sh /usr/src/release/${TARGET}/mkisoimages.sh -b FreeBSD_Install
${DISTDIR}/release.iso ${DISTDIR}/release
+ rm ${DISTDIR}/release/boot/loader.conf
${TARGET} must be ${TARGET_ARCH} because pc98 and sunv4 don't have
mkisoimages.sh script.
Do you have a plan to add a floppy support as boot device? Pc98
machines which can boot from CD-ROM are very limited. So we usually
use FD for boot media to install.
---
TAKAHASHI Yoshihiro
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On 02/28/11 09:20, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, February 28, 2011 9:49:07 am Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
BSDinstall has acquired at this point its final form (prior to a future
merge with pc-sysinstall), and I believe is ready to replace sysinstall
on the 9.0 snapshot ISOs. Barring any objections, I would like to pull
this switch 2 weeks from today, on the 14th of March.
A patch to the release infrastructure code can be found here (make
release must be run with Makefile.bsdinstall using this patch to get
non-sysinstall media):
http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-release.diff
Hmm, does your installed world include the pre-built mergemaster database?
That should really be preserved.
It happens here in the old release Makefile:
# Install the system into the various distributions.
release.2:
cd ${.CURDIR}/..&& ${CROSSMAKE} distrib-dirs DESTDIR=${RD}/trees/base
cd ${.CURDIR}/..&& ${CROSSMAKE} ${WORLD_FLAGS} distributeworld \
DISTDIR=${RD}/trees
sh ${.CURDIR}/scripts/mm-mtree.sh -F "${CROSSENV}" -D
"${RD}/trees/base"
touch ${.TARGET}
I use a one-line patch locally to bootstrap etcupdate into the worlds I
package up at work via a similar one-liner.
And this is why sending out patches for review is a good idea. I've
updated my code to call into this script, though it would be nice if,
say, make distribution handled this. Thanks for pointing it out.
Test ISOs for amd64 and i386 can be found here:
http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-amd64-20110222.iso.bz2
http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-i386-20110224.iso.bz2
More recent test ISOs, as well as ones for other architectures, may be
available at:
http://wiki.freebsd.org/BSDInstall
Bug reports would be very appreciated at this time. There are three
known bugs currently, which will be fixed soon, so please don't report
these: error reporting is not graceful if there are no writable disks in
the system, you must select at least one optional component, and the doc
build is not currently connected to the releases.
There are some changes to the distribution format involved in this
patch, which are outlined below, and about which I would also appreciate
feedback:
- The src tree is not split up into pieces (e.g. ssbin) as with sysinstall
I would at least like to have src split up into two pieces:
1) would be equivalent of sbase and ssys of old distributions, so you could
choose to just install kernel sources along with the top-level Makefile bits
to build kernels. I commonly install this subset on production machines so I
can install a custom kernel in a pinch.
2) would be everything else in the source tree.
This is a little bit tricky, since it involves inter-distribution
dependencies which don't currently exist (e.g. you need sbase for ssys
to be useful, and for severythingelse to be useful). I suppose that the
top-level Makefile bits are small and could end up in both archives,
where one can overwrite the other with the same thing. Would that solve
your problem?
-Nathan
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On Monday, February 28, 2011 9:49:07 am Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> BSDinstall has acquired at this point its final form (prior to a future
> merge with pc-sysinstall), and I believe is ready to replace sysinstall
> on the 9.0 snapshot ISOs. Barring any objections, I would like to pull
> this switch 2 weeks from today, on the 14th of March.
>
> A patch to the release infrastructure code can be found here (make
> release must be run with Makefile.bsdinstall using this patch to get
> non-sysinstall media):
> http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-release.diff
Hmm, does your installed world include the pre-built mergemaster database?
That should really be preserved.
It happens here in the old release Makefile:
# Install the system into the various distributions.
release.2:
cd ${.CURDIR}/.. && ${CROSSMAKE} distrib-dirs DESTDIR=${RD}/trees/base
cd ${.CURDIR}/.. && ${CROSSMAKE} ${WORLD_FLAGS} distributeworld \
DISTDIR=${RD}/trees
sh ${.CURDIR}/scripts/mm-mtree.sh -F "${CROSSENV}" -D
"${RD}/trees/base"
touch ${.TARGET}
I use a one-line patch locally to bootstrap etcupdate into the worlds I
package up at work via a similar one-liner.
> Test ISOs for amd64 and i386 can be found here:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-amd64-20110222.iso.bz2
> http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-i386-20110224.iso.bz2
>
> More recent test ISOs, as well as ones for other architectures, may be
> available at:
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/BSDInstall
>
> Bug reports would be very appreciated at this time. There are three
> known bugs currently, which will be fixed soon, so please don't report
> these: error reporting is not graceful if there are no writable disks in
> the system, you must select at least one optional component, and the doc
> build is not currently connected to the releases.
>
> There are some changes to the distribution format involved in this
> patch, which are outlined below, and about which I would also appreciate
> feedback:
> - The src tree is not split up into pieces (e.g. ssbin) as with sysinstall
I would at least like to have src split up into two pieces:
1) would be equivalent of sbase and ssys of old distributions, so you could
choose to just install kernel sources along with the top-level Makefile bits
to build kernels. I commonly install this subset on production machines so I
can install a custom kernel in a pinch.
2) would be everything else in the source tree.
> - Distfiles are not chunked, but are single xz-compressed archives
> - There is only one CD image produced, which is always also a live CD
> - There are no packages on this CD. There is about 100 MB of free space
> on it right now, so it might make sense to keep it this way and to make
> a separate packages CD/DVD. Removing packages from disc1 also makes
> cross-building release ISOs possible.
Packages were always optional on disc1 anyway, but moving them completely off
is probably ok.
--
John Baldwin
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On 02/28/11 08:56, Bruce Cran wrote: On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:49:07 -0600 Nathan Whitehorn wrote: - There is only one CD image produced, which is always also a live CD It would be really useful if a netinstall ISO could be made too - people still have slow Internet connections where having a bootonly disc is nice. For example Debian's 35 MB business-card CD is great when you can only download at 50 kB/s. Yes, I agree. The netinstall stuff is only really useful once the FTP mirrors start carrying the new distribution format, so it isn't hooked up yet. I've been keeping track of (and minimizing) the tools used by the installer, which should help select what things should do on this disk and in case we also want to produce some super-minimal TFTP-able MFS root in the future. -Nathan ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:49:07 -0600 Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > - There is only one CD image produced, which is always also a live CD It would be really useful if a netinstall ISO could be made too - people still have slow Internet connections where having a bootonly disc is nice. For example Debian's 35 MB business-card CD is great when you can only download at 50 kB/s. -- Bruce Cran ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Request for review/testing: switching the default installer
BSDinstall has acquired at this point its final form (prior to a future merge with pc-sysinstall), and I believe is ready to replace sysinstall on the 9.0 snapshot ISOs. Barring any objections, I would like to pull this switch 2 weeks from today, on the 14th of March. A patch to the release infrastructure code can be found here (make release must be run with Makefile.bsdinstall using this patch to get non-sysinstall media): http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-release.diff Test ISOs for amd64 and i386 can be found here: http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-amd64-20110222.iso.bz2 http://people.freebsd.org/~nwhitehorn/bsdinstall-i386-20110224.iso.bz2 More recent test ISOs, as well as ones for other architectures, may be available at: http://wiki.freebsd.org/BSDInstall Bug reports would be very appreciated at this time. There are three known bugs currently, which will be fixed soon, so please don't report these: error reporting is not graceful if there are no writable disks in the system, you must select at least one optional component, and the doc build is not currently connected to the releases. There are some changes to the distribution format involved in this patch, which are outlined below, and about which I would also appreciate feedback: - The src tree is not split up into pieces (e.g. ssbin) as with sysinstall - Distfiles are not chunked, but are single xz-compressed archives - There is only one CD image produced, which is always also a live CD - There are no packages on this CD. There is about 100 MB of free space on it right now, so it might make sense to keep it this way and to make a separate packages CD/DVD. Removing packages from disc1 also makes cross-building release ISOs possible. Thanks to everyone who has provided testing and feedback over the last two months! -Nathan ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
