Re: Finding base.tgz
>>>>> "dunham" == Steve Dunham <dunham@cse.msu.edu> writes:
dunham> I just tried another tftp install on a sparc with an NFS
dunham> install of the kernel, modules, and base, and I came across a
dunham> couple of issues that could easily be fixed.
dunham> 1. Move "Configure Networking" to before "Install Operating
dunham> System Kernel and Modules" on the sparc - all of the
dunham> networking modules are compiled into the kernel and network
dunham> installs are very common (many machines don't even support
dunham> booting from floppy).
It should be listed as an alternative. It is discussed in the
documentation, section ``Install Operating System Kernel and
Modules'':
If you wish to install the kernel and modules over the network, you
can do this using the ``nfs'' option. Your networking interfaces
must be supported by the standard kernel (see Peripherals and Other
Hardware, section 2.4). If the ``nfs'' option doesn't appear, you
need to select ``Cancel'', then go back and select the ``Configure
the Network'' step (see ``Configure the Network'', section
7.12). Then re-run this step.
dunham> 2. The search process for finding base2_1.tgz takes a very
dunham> long time, and picks up invalid base2_1.tgz files. (It picked
dunham> up an i386 one which I accidentally chose...) This can be
dunham> fixed by changing it to search "dists/*/main/disks-$(ARCH)/*".
dunham> (People using non-standard NFS trees can still choose the
dunham> manual option.)
I don't know that this is really such a robust method assumption, and
worry it might garner more bug reports than the current behavior. I
wish there was some way we could look into the base2_1.tgz file in a
reasonable efficient manner and determine the target architecture.
dunham> I'd also like to remind everybody that we still don't have
dunham> http/ftp support and "snarf" is under 20k.
Open hacking season is always encouraged. Let us know if you need
instructions on how to get at the CVS repository.
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: