Re: Installation of 6.2 beta 2 fails

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 10:11:42PM +0800, John wrote:
> I booted CD1, chose to clobber my working Linux system (use entire 
> disk), chose a custom software selection (including pretty much all the 
> source, I have 80 Gb to fill) and let 'er rip.
> 
> Right now it's complaining, "Unable to get packages/INDEX from selected 
> media." and goes on with a highly improbable explanation that the 
> packages might not be on the selected media, and that I should fix it.
> 
> It's a terrible abuse of English, that.

Not really sure where that went wrong.  However, I don't believe that
the installer looks at the INDEX until the base installation is
complete.

> Now surely you folk haven't put together _that_ brummy a CD 1. Besides, 
> it does seem to have installed lots, and things like csh are in place.
> 
> There aren't any kernel messages (from dmesg) to suggest reading the CD 
> was difficult.
> 
> But then again, pkg_info says there aren't any packages; I really don't 
> know enough about FreeBSD to tell what's wrong.

A base installation of FreeBSD doesn't contain packages, so it's highly
probably that you have a complete base installation.

> The current position is that the installer says my CD is borked, but it 
> won't let it out so I can replace it. The only way I can see to go 
> forward is to reboot and try something else*
> 
> What I think should happen at this point is that the installer should 
> allow me to back up and choose a different install medium, whether 
> another CD (I mean, crook CDs aren't unknown, even if this one's okay) 
> or a different network source.

It should.

> I don't believe it would help me in this instance, but I'd sure feel 
> better knowing I could try something else.
> 
> ps, it may well be that that image thingie is illegal as it could be 
> held to discriminate unfairly against the blind. I think a little 
> javascript that produces, say, bugbuster+$(date +%Y%U)@freebsd.org would 
> give you a suitable means of filtering out the spam. I think I could 
> devise a procmail rule to do it. Or you could put the date part into the 
> domain name, with only two or three resolving at any time.

The workaround is pretty clearly indicated in the alt attribute, and I
think that's standard enough.

Anyway, could you please report this to [email protected] where it can
be worked out?

Ceri
-- 
That must be wonderful!  I don't understand it at all.
                                                  -- Moliere

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFFM/PtocfcwTS3JF8RAsMqAJ0fOWl6jsMrxvtNW93GZqbYJ6fFowCgrESS
FU11vdF3/6oWJuyguU5R9A8=
=Z79f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----