On April 9, 2015 2:44:28 AM GMT+02:00, Stuart Henderson <st...@openbsd.org> wrote: >On 2015/04/09 01:53, Alexander Hall wrote: >> On April 8, 2015 9:13:27 AM GMT+02:00, Stuart Henderson >> <st...@openbsd.org> wrote: >> >On 2015/04/07 20:02, Alex Wilson wrote: >> >> On the topic of local tweaks to autoinstall, I was trying to use >it >> >for a >> >> bunch of blades with very limited disk the other day, and I really >> >wanted to >> >> make them just create a single slice for / and some swap. >> >.. >> >> So that then I could put >> >> >> >> Use (W)hole disk, use the = W >> >> Use (A)uto layout, (E)dit auto layout, or create (C)ustom layout = >C >> >> disklabel = D\na b\n\n4g\n\na a\n\n\n\n/\np\nq\n >> >> >> >> in my install.conf >> > >> >I think this diff has been written a few times now, iirc everybody >> >settled on the same method.. >> >> We strive to make install.conf readable, and not contain semi-binary >> data. Also, the question asked should be specific enough to allow for >> more than one disk (unless we only do the disklabel for the primary >> disk?). >> >> I haven't put a great effort into it, but I'd rather present a >> possibility to suck in a disklabel from a separate file and allow the >> user to point out said file. IIRC, krw@ made some changes that >improved >> that possibility. >> >> /Alexander > >Are people really wanting to change fsize, bsize and work out offsets >here?
IIRC you can leave those out. And if you want your own layout, I don't think creating a fake disklabel on some vnd is a huge effort > I'd have thought they want to say things like "I want 2G /, 2G >/home, 8G /var, 4G /usr, 20G /usr/local, and split the rest of the disk >between /var/www and /data", or "this is all great except this >humongous >/home, change it to 4G and put the rest in /mail". I don't think tweaking an existing auto label is unnecessary and overly . Hardcoding mount points and their sizes should be enough, and leave the rest unallocated. > >If I'm not mistaken disklabel only looks at the first letter, so it >could be a bit more self-documenting, > >disklabel = Default\nadd b\n\n4g\n\nadd a\n\n\n\n/\nprint\nquit\n > >or neatened (to some eyes) with an s_;_\n_g > >disklabel = Default;add b;;4g;;add a;;;;/;print;quit; > >For the rest of the autoinstall file, while the questions and answers >are readable, they aren't documented, so basing it on a manual >installer >run seems the only way to get started (it could even be automated >from a serial port capture), the disklabel -E "language" seems a >reasonable fit with this doesn't it? I think we can do better. Again, I'd much rather feed it a stripped down disklabel, possibly extending disklabel(8) to cope with the minimal amount of information, if needed. One missing thing was the ability to pass it the mount point. Ken might have added that since, but I'm not sure. /Alexander
