Installer changes on master (does not effect release)

[PeerCorps Trust Fund]

Since the topic is at hand. 

Was there a technical reason why a disk partition tool isn't built into the installer?

As of 4.4.1 when configuring disks for installation, the installer still recommends using DOS, another *BSD or Linux to partition disks. 

On 12/14/2015 09:53 PM, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     Master has gotten an installer revamp w/regards to the partition
>     setup.
> 
>     Previously the installer used radically different arrangements for UFS
>     vs HAMMER.  UFS put an integrated boot+root on partition 'a', swap on 'b',
>     and HAMMER put boot on 'a', swap on 'b', and root on 'd'.  HAMMER installs
>     also created a whole bunch of PFS's for various major directories such
>     as /home.
> 
>     The new setup is more uniform.  An 'a' boot, 'b' swap, 'd' root, and
>     'e' /build is created whether UFS or HAMMER is chosen.  PFS's are no
>     longer used.  Instead, major directories which generally do not have
>     to be backed up (such as /usr/obj) are put on /build and null-mounted
>     to their appropriate places via the fstab.  Major directories which
>     typically do need to be backed up, such as (most of /var), /home, /usr,
>     and /usr/local remain on the root filesystem.
> 
>     The new setup handles small drives (typically < 40GB) by not creating
>     a separate /build partition.  It still creates the /build directory
>     infrastructure on the root filesystem and still creates the null-mounts,
>     making it relatively easy for the user to manage later on if/when moving
>     to a setup with more storage.
> 
>     --
> 
>     I've been using this scheme very successfully at home and on servers
>     for more than a year now and really like the flexibility and ease of
>     management.  The null mounts are a lot easier for users to manage than
>     the hammer PFS's, and the separation reduces the chances of the root
>     filesystem becoming corrupt during a crash.
> 
>     These changes also allow UFS installs to use encrypted roots which they
>     could not before.  While we recommend HAMMER over UFS generally, there
>     are still a few cases where UFS is more convenient, such as on small
>     storage media / USB flash drives.
> 
> 					-Matt
> 					Matthew Dillon 
> 					<dillon at backplane.com>
> 

-- 
Mike