New installation script

Nathan Whitehorn nwhitehorn at
Sat Aug 6 14:52:29 UTC 2011

On 08/05/11 17:35, Kevin Oberman wrote:
> I have installed 9-Beta1 using the new installation tool and I am
> generally happy with it.
> The new dialog cause me to need a few more key-strokes because I was
> so used to the
> old behavior, but it really is more intuitive and I would not want to
> see the old behavior
> restored. I'll get used to it soon.
> I do have a couple of issues with the new installation tool, though.
> 1. After completing the partition design I am presented with the
> option to "Save" the
> partitions. It is not at all cleared that "Save" actually creates the
> partitions and newfses
> the file systems. I suggest changing "Save" to "Commit" or Execute".
> These are far
> clearer and more frightening. "Save" sounds too safe, not like you are
> about to update
> basic disk structure and may be about to make any data on the disk unusable.

Several people have commented on this, and I think it's a good point. 
These buttons will hopefully have better names by BETA2.

> 2. I was installing 9 into an existing set of partitions. (I
> understand that this is NOT
> typical.) First the system asks me about adding a partition. Oops! I
> selected the only
> option that was not clearly wrong, "Cancel". I was not at all sure
> that it was what I
> wanted, but it was. I have no idea how to improve this and it's
> probably not worth
> spending much time think about it. But the next step was confusing.
> I selected each of the existing partitions that I was going to use and
> selected modify to
> enter the name of the partition (/, /var, /usr, /tmp). I then quit and
> selected the not
> scarey "Save". I proceeded, but thought the "Save" was rather fast.
> Then the install failed
> because the partitions were already populated. I ended up re-booting
> and then going
> through each partition and deleting it and then selecting the slice
> and creating it again.
> While not a big deal, it seemed like the Modify to name the partitions
> should have
> triggered the newfs that was not done.
> I think my first point is pretty important. The second is far less so.

This is, to some extent, a deliberate design decision. The idea is that 
if you are installing onto an existing partition with the right type, 
then you really do just want to use it without newfs. This mirrors the 
behavior of similar utilities on other operating systems, and I think is 
fairly intuitive. If you delete and re-add the partition, or change its 
type in modify, then the installer knows that the filesystem state needs 
to be new and will execute newfs. It's different from the old behavior, 
but I think makes more sense.

> The install went pretty well and I am generally very pleased with the
> new installer. It's
> certainly an improvement over the old one! Thanks to the folks who worked on it.


More information about the freebsd-current mailing list