Page MenuHomeFreeBSD

bsdinstall: add pkgbase prompt to auto script
Needs ReviewPublic

Authored by ifreund_freebsdfoundation.org on Mon, Apr 14, 10:59 AM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F115290788: D49824.id153648.diff
Tue, Apr 22, 7:32 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Apr 19, 7:03 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Apr 19, 2:58 PM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Apr 19, 10:50 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Sat, Apr 19, 4:46 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Apr 18, 6:13 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Fri, Apr 18, 4:24 AM
Unknown Object (File)
Thu, Apr 17, 8:17 PM
Subscribers

Details

Reviewers
emaste
bapt
khorben_defora.org
Group Reviewers
pkgbase

Diff Detail

Repository
rG FreeBSD src repository
Lint
Lint Skipped
Unit
Tests Skipped
Build Status
Buildable 63629
Build 60513: arc lint + arc unit

Event Timeline

usr.sbin/bsdinstall/scripts/auto
165

Note to self: Revise this "pkgbase packages" wording to match whatever we decide on in D49822. Currently it seems like we'll go with "base packages"

usr.sbin/bsdinstall/scripts/auto
165

Or something similar -- we will move to having a pkgbase package repo on the install media, so would be good to indicate that this is not a permanent requirement.

169

I wonder if we could move this into a function

ifreund_freebsdfoundation.org added inline comments.
usr.sbin/bsdinstall/scripts/auto
169

I personally didn't feel the need to as the function would only be called in this one place.

I don't have a strong opinion though and don't see a reason we couldn't put everything in this else branch in a function. If you'd prefer that say the word and I'll change it :)

usr.sbin/bsdinstall/scripts/auto
156–160

Titles and button labels should all be Title Case

158

The wording here should match what's used elsewhere for pkgbase. I also don't know how much we should be signposting things here; do we want "If unsure, select standard"? Also it shouldn't just be the button label that indicates pkgbase is experimental.

ifreund_freebsdfoundation.org added inline comments.
usr.sbin/bsdinstall/scripts/auto
158

I've reworded this prompt in the latest update to this patch, let me know what you think. I don't think there are well established conventions for pkgbase related terminology in src yet. This patch stack introduces some of the first user-facing mentions of pkgbase.

jhb added inline comments.
usr.sbin/bsdinstall/scripts/auto
158

I've suggested alternate wording in the jail patch that I think is a bit more future-proof.

169

My thought is how much of this is shared with the jail script, and if it would make sense to have a 'distbase' bsdinstall command that this and the jail command share similar to the sharing you are now doing with pkgbase. If it is a big pain it's probably not worth it, but it would be a lot cleaner and make this set of changes easier to read and review overall if it is feasible.

usr.sbin/bsdinstall/scripts/auto
169

I did try extracting this "distbase" logic to a separate target originally but it didn't seem worthwhile. The only part that seemed possible to move to a separate target without significant refactoring was the "Distribution Select" dialog.

The logic in the auto and jail targets is actually more different than it might seem at first glance. The jail script does not use the fetchmissingdists target for example. The auto script also splits the logic into separate select and fetch/extract/install steps with other operations (disk formatting) in between while the jail script does not.

Anyhow, I don't think it's worth risking a regression to do heavy refactoring of this logic right now.