Re: request: LOADER_ZFS_SUPPORT

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Dan Naumov <dan.naumov_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Gary Jennejohn
> <gary.jennejohn_at_freenet.de> wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:44:12 +0200
> > Dan Naumov <dan.naumov_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > WHy not just build from source?
> >>
> >> Because expecting users to build from source to install or update
> >> their systems in the year 2009 is an outdated concept, this is why we
> >> have freebsd-update in the first place.
> >>
> >
> > This is such a load of BS I could fertilize 100 acres with it.
> >
> > In this day of inexpensive computers with fast mulit-core CPUs and
> > gigabytes of memory this argument is completely lame.
>
> No it is not. The fact that computers are faster today is not a valid
> excuse to inconvenience the users whatsoever.
>
> It is bad enough that sysinstall doesn't support ZFS so a ZFS-only
> installation has to be done purely using a commandline, but demanding
> the user to rebuild the system to be able to boot off a filesystem
> which is one of the most advertised features of FreeBSD 7.x and 8.x is
> plain ridiculous.
>
> What if the user is a newcomer who doesn't _HAVE_ an existing FreeBSD
> installation he could use to build a ZFS-boot-capable FreeBSD
> installation image? If a user goes to www.freebsd.org and downloads
> the .ISO images of 8.0, it is completely unreasonable to force the
> user to jump through having to make an installation, rebuild the
> sources, make a new .ISO for his own use and then reinstall using
> that. If you don't see WHY, I don't quite know what to tell you.
>
>
> - Sincerely,
> Dan Naumov
>
>
Of the hoops that I had to jump through to install FreeBSD 8 on a ZFS raidz,
the least inconsequential was rebuilding loader with ZFS support. Truly,
truly simple. There is also no need to build a different installation image,
everything can be done from the fixit console on the installation media. You
also don't rebuild the system, you rebuild one tiny part of it, just the
loader.

I think you are most miffed that currently the user is required to do it
themselves. If an installer compiled it for you, I don't think there would
be any fuss that this is unreasonable.


Cheers

Tom