From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <9front-bounces@9front.inri.net>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: from 9front.inri.net (9front.inri.net [168.235.81.73])
	by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E4A621647
	for <ml@inbox.vuxu.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:23:25 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from wopr.sciops.net ([216.126.196.60]) by 9front; Wed Apr 17 14:21:57 -0400 2024
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sciops.net; s=20210706;
	t=1713378100;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:  in-reply-to:in-reply-to;
	bh=Ut1FhEw3oaS8UN4DRH/j/U98r5YSzYK82TlCnK65aNk=;
	b=VFemaaXaxRxhB5ZFCmIT36SuQ3/XiP6X4sic1RBYnW0H+8TAhUfjKio5QdbPElSc1Y/AKK
	1aiu+IaagyDGpbmaYga+NF1P8JDypY07s3yhMxs2v01ZT1p50jk1radP0lWfnKYLQ2j3ID
	lxn4p7tR4lgntIrE6u640hKrxPmI8Z8=
Received: 
	by wopr.sciops.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id f8181e23 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305:256:NO)
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1309F7AED66FD6E06F26B00800EB7136@wopr.sciops.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 20:21:49 +0200
From: qwx@sciops.net
To: 9front@9front.org
In-Reply-To: <54a65182e70b25dbaf6352b6884570aa@posteo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: content-driven module 
Subject: Re: [9front] Minor Deviations in Section 4.3.11+ of the FQA?
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed Apr 17 13:38:34 +0200 2024, alex-ml@posteo.de wrote:
> Hi qwx,
> 
> thank you very much! Below is my patch suggestion.
> 
> Best regards,
> Alex

Thanks!  There's a few changes I'm not sure about, specifically those
where the prompt doesn't give any default.  iirc this occurs when
there can be multiple choices (except the very last step about mbr and
marking the boot partition active), so perhaps that was the case when
you used the installer, but not in general (cf.  below).  If so, they
should be omitted.  The rest are fine in my opinion.

Cheers,
qwx

----
> diff 4f79ee9b7787e6dea4ea94fab7b38ee50727f214 uncommitted
> --- a/fqa4.ms
> +++ b/fqa4.ms
> @@ -804,7 +804,7 @@
>   /dev/sdC0/plan9
>     empty                  0 62910477    (62910477 sectors, 29.99 GB)
> 
> -Plan 9 partition to subdivide (/dev/sdC0/plan9)[/dev/sdC0/plan9]:
> +Plan 9 partition to subdivide (/dev/sdC0/plan9)[no default]:
>   .P2
> 
>   Use the Plan 9 partition created in the previous step. Hit
> @@ -980,7 +980,7 @@
> 
>   	/dev/sdD0/data (iso9660 cdrom)
> 
> -Distribution disk (/dev/sdD0/data, /dev/sdC0/fscache, /)[/]:
> +Distribution disk (/dev/sdD0/data, /dev/sdC0/fscache, /)[no default]:
>   .P2
> 
>   The CD-ROM is already mounted at