[Bug 218822] The installed system mounts itself at "da2".

[bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org]

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218822

            Bug ID: 218822
           Summary: The installed system mounts itself at "da2".
           Product: Base System
           Version: 11.0-RELEASE
          Hardware: i386
                OS: Any
            Status: New
          Severity: Affects Only Me
          Priority: ---
         Component: misc
          Assignee: freebsd-bugs at FreeBSD.org
          Reporter: m_h_asfour at yahoo.com

English is not my language, so feel free to rewrite this to make it better.
I installed your FREEBSD from one USB stick to another and I faced a problem
that can be easily avoided.
Your installer is written assuming that it will boot from the installation
media (the USB stick that contains the .img file) and it mounts it as "da1".
The only choice I had was to insert the other USB stick at a later point in
time so that the machine will not try to boot from it. I inserted it after the
first one was mounted, so this second one was mounted as "da2" . The
installation process was successful but when I tried to boot the installed
system, it tried to mount itself as "da2" and consequently failed. I know that
this can be manually adjusted most probably in one form or another of a mount
table, but I believe that directing the users to insert only the installation
media during boot time and changing your installer script to direct them to
insert the target media at the appropriate point during the installation
process is the least-effort clean solution.
Can you please write an installer that runs under windows, for example, that
will install the ".img" file from the hard disk directly to the target USB
instead of the extra step of making the installation media ?. This step is
redundant for the vast majority of users and it is much easier to authenticate
the installed system during and after the installation process.
The license is the very first reason why anyone would install your one more
"*nix" products. Why isn't the license the very first criteria for application
classification ?!. Why isn't there at least even just a minimal working "pure"
installation that is not contaminated with GNU, GPL ... etc ?!. If not for the
usual reasons, then at least to justify your existence and provide an evidence
that someone can really live with your license.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.