install/46905: Download path for 6.0 RC1 likely to confuse

[kish%coyotepoint.com@localhost]

>Number:         46905
>Category:       install
>Synopsis:       Download path for 6.0 RC1 likely to confuse
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       non-critical
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    install-manager
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Tue Sep 04 22:20:01 +0000 2012
>Originator:     Bill Kish
>Release:        NetBSD 6.0_RC1
>Organization:
Coyote Point Systems, Inc
>Environment:
N/A
>Description:
Having noted the announcement on blog.netbsd.org. I decided to download an ISO 
install CD and install the new RC on a server.

The link on the blog page is ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-6.0_RC1/ 
where I found a large number of architecture-specific subdirectories. I chose 
i386 and eventually found myself at 
ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-6.0_RC1/i386/installation/cdrom/

In that directory, I found:

MD5             1 KB            8/21/12         1:30:00 PM
SHA512          1 KB            8/21/12         1:30:00 PM
boot-com.iso    43946 KB        8/21/12         1:30:00 PM
boot.iso        43946 KB        8/21/12         1:30:00 PM

I burned a CD from boot.iso

As it turned out, there were certain issues with this image. For example when 
the install reached the point of selecting an install media (CDROM/DVD) the 
mount of cd0a on /mnt2 failed with EBUSY. 

After much wasted time, I spoke with a very knowledgeable NetBSD developer who 
instructed me that I should have followed 
ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-6.0_RC1/iso/ which is where the "good" 
install ISO is located. 

I am filing this bug in the hopes that someone will see how easy it is for 
someone to make this mistake and experience a bad outcome.
>How-To-Repeat:
See above
>Fix:
Suggest having a more instructive readme file in 
ftp://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-6.0_RC1/

Also, I think it is a bad idea to have a directory named "iso" buried among all 
the architecture-specific directories. The tree should be reconsidered to make 
it more obvious.