[PC-BSD Testing] 64bit USB img flaws.. (v9.0 beta)

[Kris Moore]

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 / 
does.

> 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.

> Thanks..
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Testing mailing list
> Testing at lists.pcbsd.org
> http://lists.pcbsd.org/mailman/listinfo/testing


-- 
Kris Moore
PC-BSD Software
iXsystems

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pcbsd.org/pipermail/testing/attachments/20110811/6a20d023/attachment.html>