Subject: Re: RFC: 1.5.1 release notes
To: None <mw@blobulent.com>
From: Samuel Hornus <Samuel.Hornus@crans.org>
List: port-macppc
Date: 05/14/2001 18:22:36
Le lundi 14 mai 2001, =E0 10:10, Michael Wolfson a =E9crit :

> Attached are the release notes for 1.5.1.
>
> Please, I'd appreciate if I could get some of y'all to proofread them=20=

> and
> let me know if anything's unclear, wrong, or missing.

First, you could fix the title of the HTML page : it reads "April 7"...
I read it quickly.
Perhaps, when creating a booting CD, could you recommend to put both
ofwboot.xcf AND boot.fs on th HFS partition. (it worked for me that way,=20=

except that was
on the pure HFS zip drive : 'boot zip:ofwboot.xcf zip:boot.fs' : telling=20=

'zip:' twice is important
since it doesn't work if written before 'ofwboot.xcf' only).
I haven't gone further in the install since it seems to be no way to do=20=

it
without destroying the partition map :-( (except doing everything by=20
hand, which I don't know how)

With OpenFirmware 3 you propose to partition the HD with macOS9 tool...=20=

but
in the following, the HD is - in all the cases - re-initialized by=20
sysinst...
Was that usefull for the solution you thought about, and that didn't=20
work ? (the one you talk about
in your next message e.g. :
***************
> I'm sorry, it turns out the "easy" method I thought would work didn't.
> Unless you have a second drive in your system, then there is no easy=20=

> way to
> install NetBSD today.  Hopefully in a few days my pestering of=20
> developers
> will pay off and the installer will be more OF3 friendly.
***************
> Yes, I know that the whole installation onto Open Firmware 3 models=20
> using
> sysinst is not correct.  I'm waiting on resolution of PR 12631.
> http://www.NetBSD.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=3D12631

Read it... and indeed that's what we are waiting for !!
Is the 'fully by hand' installation possible without another NetBSD=20
running on another drive ?
that is with macOS9 and macOSX only ?

> And yes, I know it's *really* long.  There's not really anything that=20=

> can
> be removed.

Not so long when skipping the part one is not concern about ;-)

--
Samuel Hornus.