On 2005-06-21 jhouchin@texoma.net wrote:
> Matthew Orgass wrote:
> >   I wish NetBSD would go the other direction.  There is really nothing you
> > do in an install that is never done at other times and there are very few
> > steps necessary to get a system that boots to single user.  Time spent on
> > systinst would, IMO, be better spent working on the real tools and turn
> > sysinst into a basic shell script or eliminate it entirely.
>
> Let me see if I understand you correctly.
>
> Your wanting a system that does enough of an install for you to boot off
> the hard disk. From there you use better, normal or real tools in order
> to create the system you seek? Is that a reasonable assessment?

  Currently (at least last time I checked) sysinst does not do much and
uses the standard tools for most of the work.  It is already quite
possible to entirely ignore sysinst (I haven't used it for a long time and
never miss it).  Fdisk is a good example of my point (if it still works
the way it used to): the disk is partitioned with fdisk, but sysinst has a
separate interface to it.  The standard interface is not that bad, but if
a different interface is desired for install, then it is almost certainly
useful in other situations as well.  IMO, the "installer" should just be a
document, not a separate program.

Matthew Orgass
darkstar@city-net.com