Re: install touching mbr

[Jeremy Chadwick]

On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 05:48:12PM -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote:
> I just installed a 8.0R amd64 from memstick. when asked, I said to
> leave mbr untouched. when I rebooted, it was freebsd bootloader that
> was on control. this options is not what I think it should, or there
> is really a issue here ?

I can confirm this behaviour. Someone may have broken something when
tinkering around in that part of sysinstall (since the Standard vs.
BootMgr options were moved around compared to previous releases).

--
| Jeremy Chadwick j...@parodius.com |
| Parodius Networking http://www.parodius.com/ |
| UNIX Systems Administrator Mountain View, CA, USA |
| Making life hard for others since 1977. PGP: 4BD6C0CB |

[Nenhum_de_Nos]

hail,

I just installed a 8.0R amd64 from memstick. when asked, I said to leave mbr untouched. when I rebooted, it was freebsd bootloader that was on control. this options is not what I think it should, or there is really a issue here ?

thanks,

matheus

--
We will call you cygnus,
The God of balance you shall be

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style

[Warren Block]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2010, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 05:48:12PM -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote:
>> I just installed a 8.0R amd64 from memstick. when asked, I said to
>> leave mbr untouched. when I rebooted, it was freebsd bootloader that
>> was on control. this options is not what I think it should, or there
>> is really a issue here ?
>
> I can confirm this behaviour. Someone may have broken something when
> tinkering around in that part of sysinstall (since the Standard vs.
> BootMgr options were moved around compared to previous releases).

Not sure how to repeat the bug, but it's been there at least a few
months:
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0909262030060.13303
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?58c737d70909262054k7c7b1402w4f9c902fdca2640c

-Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA

[Bruce Cran]

On Saturday 03 April 2010 21:58:56 Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 05:48:12PM -0300, Nenhum_de_Nos wrote:
> > I just installed a 8.0R amd64 from memstick. when asked, I said to
> > leave mbr untouched. when I rebooted, it was freebsd bootloader that
> > was on control. this options is not what I think it should, or there
> > is really a issue here ?
>
> I can confirm this behaviour. Someone may have broken something when
> tinkering around in that part of sysinstall (since the Standard vs.
> BootMgr options were moved around compared to previous releases).

I have a patch at http://reviews.freebsdish.org/r/15/ waiting to be committed.
I believe the "None" option won't change the bootcode itself but will still
mark the FreeBSD partition as active.

--
Bruce Cran

[S Roberts]

Hello,

Sooo.., which **IS** the correct option to leave the existing MBR
untouched???

Regards,

S Roberts

> -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA

> _______________________________________________
> freebsd...@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-stabl...@freebsd.org"

[Randi Harper]

I disagree with some of the wording. Specifically, lines 100-102 of
usr.sbin/sade/menus.c

"If you will only have FreeBSD on the machine the boot manager is not
needed and it slows down the boot while offering you the choice of
which operating system to boot."

^^ not 100% true, as the boot manager also provides the option of PXE
booting. This statement seems excessively wordy and unnecessary.

Also, should this be broken up into two patches? One for the change in
sade, the other for sysinstall? I'm not picky about this, but you are
fixing two issues in two separate programs.

-- randi