From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by 10.236.95.4 with SMTP id o4csp109454yhf; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:45:58 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <9front+bncCIfk-sO2AhCG5duABRoEVUD3ng@googlegroups.com> Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of 9front+bncCIfk-sO2AhCG5duABRoEVUD3ng@googlegroups.com designates 10.180.105.163 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.180.105.163 Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of 9front+bncCIfk-sO2AhCG5duABRoEVUD3ng@googlegroups.com designates 10.180.105.163 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=9front+bncCIfk-sO2AhCG5duABRoEVUD3ng@googlegroups.com; dkim=pass header.i=9front+bncCIfk-sO2AhCG5duABRoEVUD3ng@googlegroups.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.180.105.163]) by 10.180.105.163 with SMTP id gn3mr551857wib.0.1343681158516 (num_hops = 1); Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:45:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:to:subject :in-reply-to:mime-version:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=YuVFCdVbqVBVJJuxsy8tlWUht3wL3iW11t3WQ7GJkTs=; b=1vbDTTFg3OvZ69q4RjrYneJ0g/kXhicxEaxd0Nmdmjn2hgj6bHeOqtwAEQT9wL5TyF V21nDzCmLPgAYM5jdx1vmT8YzeU49iDFxjC2aj2JljNcERr5zQ/Wb22nSIGL8E2w5As/ +Ce0i3x53mLFp/nAK7J4O54TYE7Pxyc7zlUJM= Received: by 10.180.105.163 with SMTP id gn3mr122669wib.0.1343681158455; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:45:58 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: 9front@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.14.225.199 with SMTP id z47ls13193eep.4.gmail; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.218.1 with SMTP id j1mr10546479eep.6.1343681157945; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.218.1 with SMTP id j1mr10546478eep.6.1343681157934; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sp.nv ([68.179.143.215]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id v42si16139246eep.0.2012.07.30.13.45.57; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.179.143.215 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of sl@9front.org) client-ip=68.179.143.215; Received: from pi.att ([192.168.4.47]) by sp; Mon Jul 30 15:45:31 CDT 2012 Message-ID: <3f052dada898ca857776ea6ab0d5e128@yourdomain.dom> Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:45:27 -0500 From: sl@9front.org To: 9front@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Installing 9front In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: sl@9front.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.179.143.215 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of sl@9front.org) smtp.mail=sl@9front.org Reply-To: 9front@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list 9front@googlegroups.com; contact 9front+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: <9front.googlegroups.com> X-Google-Group-Id: 831096995978 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: 9front@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > But probably the most important is we need an easy way to test changes > to the installer, building a new iso and then re-installing in a vm is > not practical for little script changes. > > Maybe we could have a 'fake' install environment somehow that is easy > to reset and where you can run the whole installer system inside a rio > window. Not sure how practical and difficult this could be to arrange, > but seems like it should be feasible and should make it much easier to > polish the installer script(s). This is not a bad idea. The current installer is simply modified from the Bell Labs scripts. -sl