On 2023-08-14 16:11, RVP wrote:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023, salqu...@duck.com wrote:
Previous output was for the NetBSD 10.0 beta installer. This is for
the HEAD installer, whose behavior is the same.
I made some notes last year which should help you install NetBSD+UEFI
with
pre-existing
On 15/08/23 12:13, Greg Troxel wrote:
It is an Optiplex 3070 SFF, from 2019, with 32 GB RAM and i7-9700 (9th
gen) and Intel UHD Graphics 630. It came with a Kingwin SSD with
Windows which I swapped out for a bigger one I have more confidence in,
and can only really handle a single 2.5"
Mark Davies writes:
> What sort of Dell is it? We've got lots of them of various ages so
> I'm fairly familiar with the BIOS settings. Any halfway recent one
> will let you UEFI boot off anything, but the newer they are the more
> restrictive they are in what they will legacy boot from.
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023, salqu...@duck.com wrote:
Previous output was for the NetBSD 10.0 beta installer. This is for the HEAD
installer, whose behavior is the same.
I made some notes last year which should help you install NetBSD+UEFI with
pre-existing partitions on the disk. The procedure is
On 2023-08-14 07:50, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 04:33:49PM +0200, bsdprg wrote:
NetBSD 9.x sysinst correctly identifies the NetBSD wedge and allows me
to
install 9.x on it.
NetBSD 10.x sysinst does not show me the option to install on this
wedge.
Instead it shows only the
On 15/08/23 01:30, Greg Troxel wrote:
Martin Husemann writes:
But the part that I don't understand: why can't you get your machine to
boot the USB install image in UEFI mode? With stupid x86 firmware everything
is possible but I would guess it is more likely that some setting should
allow
On 2023-08-14 16:50, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 04:33:49PM +0200, bsdprg wrote:
NetBSD 9.x sysinst correctly identifies the NetBSD wedge and allows me
to
install 9.x on it.
NetBSD 10.x sysinst does not show me the option to install on this
wedge.
Instead it shows only the
On Mon, 14 Aug 2023 at 18:56, Manuel Kuklinski wrote:
>
> Am Montag 14 August 2023 um 12:49:53 -0400, schrieb Greg Troxel 0,1K:
> > Did you try to set it and verify that it doesn't work? I have the
> > impression that xattr is fine in zfs -- but that is an impression, not
> > knowledge.
> >
>
>
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 08:32:20AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> In contemplating bulk builds and resources, I wonder if there are still
> people who:
>
> are running NetBSD/i386 (as opposed to amd64)
yes: NetBSD 9.3 NetBSD 9.3 () #3: Wed Aug 17 18:46:46 UTC
2022
On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 01:04:50PM -, Michael van Elst wrote:
> g...@lexort.com (Greg Troxel) writes:
>
> >it was underpowered, that I might or might not ever power up again, and
> >if I did I wouldn't use ftp.n.o packages on it.
>
> What else? Self-compiling on a system you already consider
On 2023-08-14 20:16, Martin Husemann wrote:
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:34:26PM -0400, salqu...@duck.com wrote:
$ dkctl wd0 listwedges
/dev/rwd0: 6 wedges:
dk0: EFI System Partition, 409600 blocks at 40, type: msdos
dk1: 82b9223d-b27d-504a-8ea9-693104c2edb5, 209715200 blocks at 411648,
type:
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 11:15:48PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote:
> A better solution would probably be to simply set up all
> possible boot methods (for the way the system is being
> configured) without caring which method happened to be
> used to boot the install image.
Yes, ideally.
But that will
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 02:14:26PM -0400, salqu...@duck.com wrote:
> Previously I did not select this option ?preconfigured ?wedges?? because it
> says - preconfigured ?wedges? dk(4) in my case, and dk4 is not the NetBSD
> partition, it is a Linux swap partition. However, you are right that it
>
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:34:26PM -0400, salqu...@duck.com wrote:
> $ dkctl wd0 listwedges
>
> /dev/rwd0: 6 wedges:
> dk0: EFI System Partition, 409600 blocks at 40, type: msdos
> dk1: 82b9223d-b27d-504a-8ea9-693104c2edb5, 209715200 blocks at 411648, type:
> ffs
> dk2:
Am Montag 14 August 2023 um 12:49:53 -0400, schrieb Greg Troxel 0,1K:
> Did you try to set it and verify that it doesn't work? I have the
> impression that xattr is fine in zfs -- but that is an impression, not
> knowledge.
>
Hi!
Already tried this:
supermicro# zfs set xattr=on
Thanks to martin@ and mlelstv@ for hints. I have updated the wiki page:
https://wiki.netbsd.org/Installation_on_UEFI_systems/
please feel free to fix it or tell me I did it wrong; I try to update
things after getting help to help the next person or future me after
this is paged out.
Hi!
I'm new to NetBSD, but so far I'm happy about my decision to switch from
another UNIX-like OS; especially since ZFS is supported for some time
now. I'm relying on ZFS and Samba for Macintosh clients and need xattr
for "fruit:timemachine = yes" in /usr/pkg/etc/samba/smb.conf.
I read that
It would be possible to add a manual override in the installer, but
currently there is no such thing.
A better solution would probably be to simply set up all
possible boot methods (for the way the system is being
configured) without caring which method happened to be
used to
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 04:33:49PM +0200, bsdprg wrote:
> NetBSD 9.x sysinst correctly identifies the NetBSD wedge and allows me to
> install 9.x on it.
> NetBSD 10.x sysinst does not show me the option to install on this wedge.
> Instead it shows only the full disk options and one EFI partition
I have UEFI system with 5 wedges, 1 is the EFI partition, and Linux
filesystem and swap are the other 2, and NetBSD FFSv2 and swap are the
remaining 2.
NetBSD 9.x sysinst correctly identifies the NetBSD wedge and allows me
to install 9.x on it.
NetBSD 10.x sysinst does not show me the option to
Martin Husemann writes:
> But the part that I don't understand: why can't you get your machine to
> boot the USB install image in UEFI mode? With stupid x86 firmware everything
> is possible but I would guess it is more likely that some setting should
> allow booting from USB in UEFI mode. Maybe
g...@lexort.com (Greg Troxel) writes:
>For the EFI partition, what are the rules? It seems like
> the size is at least X and less than Y
100MB is the minimum, some systems reject smaller EFI partitions.
It also should be FAT32.
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 08:39:11AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> So it seems the installer detected that it booted from mbr instead of
> UEFI and set up MBR probably gptboot and skipped the EFI gpt partition.
> Maybe I'm over-assuming.
Yes, the installer (on x86) uses machdep.bootmethod to decide
(I have a new 2019 Dell, and I'll post details in the thread where I
asked about hardware after it is working.)
Windows is set up to boot gpt/UEFI on the 1T low-end SSD that I have set
aside. I'm thus trying to install onto a new 4T SSD.
The BIOS situation is a little funky. It's clearly UEFI,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 07:50:01AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> In this case, wedges show up as logical disks in hw.disknames, so it's
> really that partitions aren't disks.
Indeed, partitions are disks and wedges appear as a disk that doesn't
support partitions.
> > You can avoid this by
Hi Michael,
Michael van Elst wrote:
What else? Self-compiling on a system you already consider outdated?:)
Binary packages are more important on systems that we consider old,
doesn't have to be a VAX.
you nail it.. actually older or slower systems need binary things.
Imagine compiling
Hi Greg
Greg Troxel wrote:
In contemplating bulk builds and resources, I wonder if there are still
people who:
are running NetBSD/i386 (as opposed to amd64)
are using the binary packges from quarterly branches on ftp.netbsd.org
are running NetBSD 10 already, or who intend to move to
Michael van Elst writes:
>> Alternatively, I see that we add wedges to hw.disknames. My system has
>> a NetBSD boot image on a flash drive this minute, and:
>> hw.disknames = wd0 cd0 sd0 dk0 dk1
>> so if we add dk0, which is really no different logically than sd0a, it
>> seems like we should
Hi David,
David Brownlee wrote:
I also think there are a potentially interesting (if small) set of
people who would like a desktop with minimal web browser on an older
32bit x86 system, and NetBSD + ArcticFox pretty much delivers on that
nice to see ArcticFox mentioned!
Indeed, I use it on an
Centuries ago, Nostradamus predicted that David Brownlee would write on Sun Aug
13 12:00:14 2023:
>
> This reminded me of something I saw a little while back, but neglected
> to report - now filed as
> https://gnats.netbsd.org/cgi-bin/query-pr-single.pl?number=57583 - I
> think this matches
30 matches
Mail list logo
