Hi Matthew
quoted text
> Use 'n' instead of 'm' to provide the needed mount points.

That address my question. An obvious over site on my part! I never used it until
today as far back as version 2.8.

quoted text
> With the old installer, while in the disk label editor, you could name
> your mount points while creating (command 'a') or modifying (command 'm')
> your partitions, or you could just name the mount points for existing
> partitions without otherwise those partitions (command 'n').

I see that now.

quoted text
> After you finished the disk label editor, the old installer would then
> prompt you to name your mount points.  If you'd already named them in the
> disk label editor, this was redundant.  The new installer removes the
> redundancy and requires that you name your mount points in the editor.

That's where my confusion came from. I wrongly assume that you create the
partitions and then named them after the fact. I was obviously wrong and made
the wrong assumptions here.

quoted text
> When you choose "C" for a custom layout, the installer shows you this:
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You will now create an OpenBSD disklabel inside the OpenBSD MBR
> partition. The disklabel defines how OpenBSD splits up the MBR partition
> into OpenBSD partitions in which filesystems and swap space are created.
> You must provide each filesystem's mountpoint in this program.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Note the last sentence.

I saw that one and obviously read it, but didn't sync in for me. Based on
previous years, I assume that, yes you need to partition your disk and then
obviously will also need to provide the mount point when you are done. Before,
you could provide them after the fact like you explain and obviously was a miss
understanding of the process on my part that you clarify for me.

Sorry for the noise.

And Theo, I am truly sorry you got upset on this question from me here. I
obviously failed to understand it properly and that's why I asked the question.

My apology for your increase in temper cause by my question, but I just
obviously didn't get it right and this clear it up for me. I was obviously
wrongly looking for the installer asking me for the mount point as before, witch
I see now was wrong to assume on my part.

Thanks for your time and clarification on my miss understanding. One need to be
ready to get a beat up to get clarifications, but that's fine.

And Theo, I NEVER intended to make you waste time here. It was an honest miss
understanding on my part obviously.

Best regards,

Daniel