On 26.05.13 01:07, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > I'm not aware of any movement there (on either side of the table). I'd > personally be very suspicious of an all-sh(1) future -- by far the > cleanest parts of bsdinstall are in C -- and this is especially true for > interacting with geom. That said, since I've lost nearly all of my free > time and ability to work on bsdinstall, I won't get in the way of anyone > else working on things
As discussed at BSDCan, I'd be willing to participate in the development and at least implement setting up zpools/zfs and geli/gbde providers. I have done similar things in sh in my ezjail tools and think I can glue the rest together. Scanning through the pc-sysinstall code, I find nothing too fancy there regarding either interaction with zfs nor geom tools. I do not think it is necessary as a back end just for these features. Nathan, is there any design rationale available for the scripts, e.g. on why you chose sh versus C and were you provided with some kind of wish list/requirements in the first place? Any particular mail thread to scan through beforehand? Regards, erdgeist _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"