On Wed, 2008-07-23 at 16:30 +0300, Alexander Todorov wrote: > Jeremy Katz wrote: > | I'm not entirely convinced on this front -- this then requires a lot of > | manual work to find and mount the rootfs and thus avoids testing one of > | the biggest parts of rescue mode (finding and mounting the root). We're > | probably better off doing the mount through the normal paths if you're > | doing kickstart rescue mode > > Leaving aside the mount of the root fs we can test other stuff: FirstAidKit > (although you can test it by other means also), if the rescue environment is > sane (e.g. bash is there), if we can chroot into the system (given we've mounted > that by hand), network setup, anything else people will do if they boot with > nomount and start poking around in the shell. > > I agree with doing the mount through the current code but how do we cleanly > avoid the places where the user is asked to make a decision: > Mount: Read/Write, Read only, Skip ? Either a new directive or just doing the sane default (r/w) if we're in kickstart mode. Arguably, we should have a 'rescue' directive that acts like upgrade and others and kicks us into rescue mode so that you can have everything for rescue mode specified in the ks.cfg. Then you'd have rescue rescue --nomount rescue --romount > What partition contains the root fs? The easy answer is that we just do the first. And then if we think that caring about multiple roots[1] is important, then we should do it in a way that generalizes and also helps the upgrade case Jeremy _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
