> On 2015/04/09 01:53, Alexander Hall wrote: > > On April 8, 2015 9:13:27 AM GMT+02:00, Stuart Henderson > > <st...@openbsd.org> wrote: > > >On 2015/04/07 20:02, Alex Wilson wrote: > > >> On the topic of local tweaks to autoinstall, I was trying to use it > > >for a > > >> bunch of blades with very limited disk the other day, and I really > > >wanted to > > >> make them just create a single slice for / and some swap. > > >.. > > >> So that then I could put > > >> > > >> Use (W)hole disk, use the = W > > >> Use (A)uto layout, (E)dit auto layout, or create (C)ustom layout = C > > >> disklabel = D\na b\n\n4g\n\na a\n\n\n\n/\np\nq\n > > >> > > >> in my install.conf > > > > > >I think this diff has been written a few times now, iirc everybody > > >settled on the same method.. > > > > We strive to make install.conf readable, and not contain semi-binary > > data. Also, the question asked should be specific enough to allow for > > more than one disk (unless we only do the disklabel for the primary > > disk?). > > > > I haven't put a great effort into it, but I'd rather present a > > possibility to suck in a disklabel from a separate file and allow the > > user to point out said file. IIRC, krw@ made some changes that improved > > that possibility. > > > > /Alexander > > Are people really wanting to change fsize, bsize and work out offsets > here? I'd have thought they want to say things like "I want 2G /, 2G > /home, 8G /var, 4G /usr, 20G /usr/local, and split the rest of the disk > between /var/www and /data", or "this is all great except this humongous > /home, change it to 4G and put the rest in /mail".
I think this entire conversation is ridiculous, right from the start. If you have very small disk, disklabel will give you one partition. No problem. DONE. If you have ample disk, it will try to give you more partitions, because the split partition scheme is MORE SECURE. It will stepwise increase the number of partitions in use, using a heuristic that a lot of development effort went into. Why all that effort? Because opportunisticallysplitting the partitions up like that brings significant security benefits in the worst case misbehaviour cases for badly written daemon software. So the OP wants to purposely turn off the split partitition scheme? That is ridiculous. Your usage case is obviously proprietary to your situation, and is not a general usage case. Like Alexander, I do believe the install script should become more complicated to handle such an obscure bad usage case, and in fact it probably should not handle it at all. And sorry, if the autoinstaller does not handle every single type of configuration change? Well that was known as a problem from the start, yet these are for things which 99.99999% of people don't need to change. Oh come on, cut the BS, how big is the disk in this case, 270K or something? I am sorry, but these days such configurations are simply narrow minded. Frankly, I think the OP should be left to his own devices.
