Subject: Re: A positive comment about 1.3 Sysinst
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG>
From: Dave Burgess <>
List: current-users
Date: 01/19/1998 17:52:33
> [redirected from port-i386 since sysinst is used on other ports]
> The best thing is if you send a separate PR for each (and every)
> failure condition that sysinst doesn't handle gracefully, like
>   * trying to remount already-mounted filesystems
>   * not unmounting sysinst-mounted filesystems when an upgrade/install is
>     aborted
>   * not noticing overfull filesystems,
> etc, etc.  Sysinst detects and handles these as best we can, but it's
> always good to have a list of more things to improve.
> Thanks on behalf of Phil Nelson (who may not read port-i386) and the
> rest of us.  BTW, I don't know about i386, but on other ports
> sysinst's menu-driven disklabel editing and sanity checks should make
> even more of a difference to full INSTALLs than it does with upgrades.

Three things:

1)  Thanks for the help and support on getting something that works
reasonably well.  It is an excellent start and something that makes the
system far easier to install.

2)  IMHO - We could really stand having sysinst worked as a separate product
line instead of tying it to a version release for the OS.  Now that we
have a working 1.3, wouldn't it make sense to get sysinst working with
1.3 and release a new "version of the week":, updating the program as we go?
If that was the plan, the obviously this is a "Never Mind".

3)  I have yet to actually have sysinst work with a SCSI drive and a
1542 SCSI card.  I've tried two different machine and ended up
installing both by hand to get them so they could boot.  On both,
sysinst points the boot to the wrong place on the drive for the
system startup.

Dave Burgess                   Network Engineer - Nebraska On-Ramp, Inc.
*bsd FAQ Maintainer / SysAdmin for the NetBSD system in my spare bedroom
"Just because something is stupid doesn't mean there isn't someone that 
doesn't want to do it...."