Re: 9.0_RC1 & HEAD

[Clay Daniels <clays.shell%SDF.ORG@localhost>]

Thanks Ottavio & Martin for the info. I had some reading to do, and then 
today I managed to install NetBSD-9.0_RC1 on my new machine. It went well, 
but not before several trys. What worked for me was the USB image named 
~amd64-UEFI-install.img But installed on a MBR disk partition table on an 
M2 ssd drive. Whatever works;-)

I had first set the M2 drive to a GPT partiton table, but it failed to 
install that way. I still need to set up a desktop X11 window, but 
otherwise to works fine.

Clay

On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Ottavio Caruso wrote:

> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 08:45:31 +0000
> From: Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012%yahoo.com@localhost>
> To: Clay Daniels <clays.shell%sdf.org@localhost>
> Cc: netbsd-users <netbsd-users%netbsd.org@localhost>, Scott Bennett <bennett%sdf.org@localhost>
> Subject: Re: 9.0_RC1 & HEAD
>
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 08:04, Clay Daniels <clays.shell%sdf.org@localhost> wrote:
>
> > What is the difference between the boot.iso file and the boot-com.iso
> > file?
>
> http://cdn.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-9.0_RC1/amd64/INSTALL.html#Quick%20install%20notes%20for%20the%20impatient
>
> "These images are bootable, but do not contain binary sets. They are
> intended for network installs or system repair. boot.iso is for VGA
> console installation, and boot-com.iso is for installation over serial
> console (com0, 9600 baud)."
>
>
> --
> Ottavio Caruso

clays.shell%sdf.org@localhost
SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.org