[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Removing the number of supported installation methods



On Wed, 2010-05-12 at 10:18 -0400, James Laska wrote:
> Greetings,
> 
> Following up to Hans' earlier thread on reducing the number of screens
> in the installer, I'd like to discuss reducing the supported
> installation methods.  Any proposals here might also need to be reviewed
> in a larger product setting, but I'm curious how this group feels from a
> development, maintenance and test perspective.
> 
> Currently, in Fedora we test the following installation methods: 
> 
>      1. CD (multiple disc) 
>      2. DVD 
>      3. boot.iso + remote http repository 
>      4. boot.iso + remote NFS repository (not actively tested) 
>      5. Live install 
>      6. pxeboot + remote install.img and repo 
>      7. HD ISO install 
>      8. NFS install 
>      9. NFS ISO install 
>     10. HD install (not actively tested)

I think I can make a better (and more dire) diagram.

Methods to get packages:
1) Media 
2) Split Media
3) HD Iso
4) Http
5) ftp
6) NFS
7) NFS Iso

Methods to boot:
1) boot.iso
2) Media
3) Split Media
4) vmlinux+initrd via pxe
5) vmlinux+initrd via grub
6) vmlinux+initrd va <insert boot loader here>

Then take all of the methods of booting, and combine them with the
methods of installing, and you've got a ton of different combinations.

> 
> Are there additional supported installation paths that I missed? 
> 
> Do we really *need* all of these?  From a test perspective, this does
> offer challenges.  I'm not listing all the command-line permutations
> where the boot media, install.img and package repositories are all in
> different locations.  Some suggestions ...
> 
>      1. Do we need support for *multiple* remote installation methods
>         (http, ftp, nfs, nfsiso) ... why not just HTTP (sure, libcurl
>         offers more, but HTTP would be documented and supported)? 
>      2. Are HD installs still valuable to users and customers of distros
>         that rely on the anaconda installer (preupgrade)? 
>      3. Are HD ISO installs still valuable?  
>      4. boot.iso, a boot CD, a boot DVD and a bootable Live image.  Is
>         there some way to combine these 4 boot images.  Do we need all
>         of them?  What about only providing a Live image only -- perhaps
>         more of a question for respective product teams (RHEL, Fedora).
> 
> Thanks,
> James
> _______________________________________________
> Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
> Anaconda-devel-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list


-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- FreedomĀ² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]