An OpenBSD machine only has one OpenBSD install. As soon as we leave that model, and allow other setup models, perhaps you think there will be two or three potential configurations that people setup.
I don't think so, I think it will keep being extended by people who do more and more scewed up bizzare configurations, all of which (obviously, to you) will need to be supported, and everything gets more complicated. I think we should say "STOP". Now. And not start down that roadmap. How many Windows configurations can I put onto a PC? Can I put two Andriod configurations onto my phone? You built something for a testlab. Your conclusion is that it should work for everyone. I simply cannot come to the same conclusion, because it requires complexity, but instead I think we should embrace simplicity even if it limits choice. Klemens Nanni <k...@openbsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 07:49:11AM -0700, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > Klemens Nanni <k...@openbsd.org> wrote: > > > > > This is because the installer always considers the first root disk it > > > finds as the one to upgrade, which is certainly not what I intend or > > > expect when booting/upgrading the softraid installation on sd1-3. > > > > What does > > > > first root disk > > > > Mean? > > One machine with two phsyical disks, say one NVMe and regular SSD. > Both disks contain a standalone OpenBSD installation. > > I consider each of them a root disk. > > > > > There is only one root disk. The root disk is the one that actually > > contains > > the / that is mounted. > > > > It is this one: > > > > root on sd0a (fb786f6b01042b30.a) swap on sd0b dump on sd0b > > > > You cannot change this. If you use the bootloader to tell the kernel do > > do something else, then I argue that sysupgrade and the installer should > > punish you unless you *manually tell it that every time* > > I don't set anything in /etc/boot.conf or the boot> prompt. > > I select the disk to boot from in the UEFI boot manager. > > > > > The install script knows what the root filesystem is using very simple > > heuristics, but by creating two new sysctl, I am afraid you will enrich > > this ability to support bizzare configurations that did not work, and > > I argue *should never work*. > > > > > It is probably not that common to have multiple installations/root disks > > > in one machine, but it isn't "weird" to me, either. > > > > What? It is not weird > > > > I think this is unsupported bullshit. > > > > Why do we need the install script to support this configuration you > > created? Why do we need to encourage other people to have such > > configurations? When they create such a configuration, and find the > > tooling can support it, won't they go and do even stranger things, then > > find the tooling doesn't support that even-stranger setup, and then > > you'll come back adding support for increasingly strange setups, and > > eventually we are going to end up with a large userbase *not using* a > > single root filesystem? > > > > > Overwriting the wrong system during an upgrade because the installer > > > makes too big of an assumption about the first disk is weird to me. > > > > > > > > > I can post console logs later showing how the installer picks the wrong > > > disk, if you want. > > > > There is only one possible root filesystem. > > > > If you created multiple root filesystems, you have created a mess and > > why is it wrong for me to argue you need to experience pain for the > > decisions that led you there? > > > > I do not think you are being honest about the reason for these extensions. > > > > I'm pretty honest, but apparently not precise enough. > > Now that all the softraid/installboot diffs landed and the dust has > settled, let me iterate over and test my setup again to make sure I'm > not tripping over my own mistakes. > > Then I can come back with a clear update or reproducer. >
