11:01 p.m.
I've committed code to pungi that will prevent boot.iso from being on
CD1 and the DVD. I've had various discussions with folks about this in
the past, and given that boot.iso is 122M on x86_64 that's a lot of
packages we could have instead. In the past, boot.iso was much smaller
and it wasn't a big cost, things have changed.
If anybody has a really good reason for why we should continue to put
boot.iso on the media, speak now.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
11:01 p.m.
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 21:01 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
If anybody has a really good reason for why we should continue to
put
boot.iso on the media, speak now.
This change will be post-alpha.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
11:24 p.m.
Jesse Keating wrote:
I've committed code to pungi that will prevent boot.iso from
being on
CD1 and the DVD. I've had various discussions with folks about this in
the past, and given that boot.iso is 122M on x86_64 that's a lot of
packages we could have instead. In the past, boot.iso was much smaller
and it wasn't a big cost, things have changed.
If anybody has a really good reason for why we should continue to put
boot.iso on the media, speak now.
Have we relaxed the checks that make the installer bail out if your boot.iso
doesn't precisely match what's in your repo? If not, decoupling them in the
downloads will create a lot of pain for a lot of people.
-- Chris
11:25 p.m.
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 00:24 -0500, Chris Snook wrote:
Have we relaxed the checks that make the installer bail out if your boot.iso
doesn't precisely match what's in your repo? If not, decoupling them in the
downloads will create a lot of pain for a lot of people.
Yes, a while ago now.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
11:27 p.m.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 00:24 -0500, Chris Snook wrote:
>
> Have we relaxed the checks that make the installer bail out if your boot.iso
> doesn't precisely match what's in your repo? If not, decoupling them in the
> downloads will create a lot of pain for a lot of people.
Yes, a while ago now.
In that case, I have no objection. In the interest of convenience, it might be
nice to put them on a separate rescue CD (making yet more room on the install
set) since there tends to be an overlap between the sorts of people who use
boot.iso and the sorts of people who use the rescue environment.
-- Chris
11:37 p.m.
On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 00:27 -0500, Chris Snook wrote:
In that case, I have no objection. In the interest of convenience,
it might be
nice to put them on a separate rescue CD (making yet more room on the install
set) since there tends to be an overlap between the sorts of people who use
boot.iso and the sorts of people who use the rescue environment.
boot.iso has been capable of running the rescue environment since F9 I
do believe. That's when it grew. There is no longer an iso that is
just kernel/initrd (stage1), all the isos we generate have both
kernel/initrd (stage1) and install.img (stage2).
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
4:31 a.m.
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:01:11PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
I've committed code to pungi that will prevent boot.iso from
being on
CD1 and the DVD. I've had various discussions with folks about this in
the past, and given that boot.iso is 122M on x86_64 that's a lot of
packages we could have instead. In the past, boot.iso was much smaller
and it wasn't a big cost, things have changed.
If anybody has a really good reason for why we should continue to put
boot.iso on the media, speak now.
We still have the kernel+initrd for pxeboot on the CD1/DVD, right ? If
so, then killing boot.iso from the CD1/DVD image shouldn't any problem
for the virt provisioning tools POV.
Regards,
Daniel
--
|: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :|
9:07 a.m.
On Thursday, January 29 2009, Daniel P. Berrange said:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 09:01:11PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> I've committed code to pungi that will prevent boot.iso from being on
> CD1 and the DVD. I've had various discussions with folks about this in
> the past, and given that boot.iso is 122M on x86_64 that's a lot of
> packages we could have instead. In the past, boot.iso was much smaller
> and it wasn't a big cost, things have changed.
>
> If anybody has a really good reason for why we should continue to put
> boot.iso on the media, speak now.
We still have the kernel+initrd for pxeboot on the CD1/DVD, right ? If
so, then killing boot.iso from the CD1/DVD image shouldn't any problem
for the virt provisioning tools POV.
Yep, we have to have one copy of them for isolinux to boot the install and
then just hardlink them out to all the other locations on the disc that people
semi-expect to find them.
Jeremy
5:46 a.m.
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 21:01 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
If anybody has a really good reason for why we should continue to
put
boot.iso on the media, speak now.
Really, the only use case left is people without functioning DVD drives
and little or no Internet access that accidentally download the DVD or
get it from someone/somewhere else. Everyone else already either has the
appropriate media, or can download the net install image.
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet(a)gmail.com>
PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed
5584
days inactive
5584
days old
8 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Chris Snook -
Daniel P. Berrange -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Jeremy Katz -
Jesse Keating