[PC-BSD Testing] 64bit USB img flaws.. (v9.0 beta)
kris at pcbsd.org
Thu Aug 11 09:43:59 PDT 2011
On 08/02/2011 20:19, Tigersharke . wrote:
> Hey there folks..
> Since I was unable to install from net or USB with the
> PCBSD9.0-BETA1-x64-USB-bootonly.img (on my USB thumbdrive), I decided
> to try the PCBSD9.0-BETA1-x64-USBLITE.img
> The network install seems broken in the same way for both the
> 'bootonly' and 'USBLITE' versions:
> * Choosing network install and configuring DHCP/auto, or manual
> network configuration make no difference.
> * Clicking 'next' brings up the mirror selection window, either
> choosing one from the list or manually typing one, seem to give
> the same result.
> * The mirror selection window closes when clicking on its 'select'
> button, but then clicking on the 'next' button in the primary
> installer window, brings back the mirror selection window.
What was your network connection / setup like? Proxy? Or should regular
DHCP just work?
> Installation of lite was successful when USB was chosen as the source.
> However, I would strongly suggest some kind of indication during this
> process of what the "lite" version actually installs. I realize that
> this information can be obtained elsewhere but I believe it should be
> included, possibly as part of the installation summary at least. I
> recommend a new heading "USB 'lite' is defined as:"
I'll make sure we specify that better, we'll have to update the web /
download pages before release to indicate what each type of media has /
> Other things:
> That "slow boot/load" I mentioned in the other post was the
> FreeBSD/x86 bootstrap loader, and after reaching the boot menu, a
> further boot to the login prompt is speedy.
> I managed to write down most of that odd error message (I don't recall
> seeing it during install/boot of previous versions), it was:
> Detecting X setup
> Autoconfiguring X server... ls: /dev/uhid* no such file or directory
Fixed this in SVN.
> Although the install was successful for 64bit USB 'lite' there are
> problems with the display configurator. Preliminary investigation
> seems to imply that no changes are made. I would expect to see a
> difference when switching from 1900x1200 to 1600x1200, or changing
> drivers from radeonhd-3d-enable to radeonhd or to ati. I am unsure
> what I should expect, but I will keep looking into it to see if
> switching to an almost unusable 1024x768 would be a large enough
> change to notice. :)
What type of video card is in this system? The ATI / Intel drivers are
really crummy, and if you select those drivers and it brings you right
back to the configuration screen it means X failed to startup. After
trying to test a new display setup, right-click on the background and
bring up "xterm" and run "cat /var/log/Xorg.0.log.old" and you should be
able to see what the particular X error was when testing the new config.
> Testing mailing list
> Testing at lists.pcbsd.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Testing