> the only think i do not like is the hardcoded RHEL name detection. Do we have any way how to pass arguments/flags in the .discinfo or some similarfile? Well, the only way to get product information at this stage of anaconda is to look in the .discinfo file, but it's a completely unstructured file so we don't want to go adding more stuff in there unless it's absolutely necessary to the survival of the human race. Once we're in stage2 we can look at .treeinfo or use an installclass. Of course, it's entirely too late at that point. And I'm certainly not going to suggest we come up with some loader installclass mechanism using libdl. That's just sick. > > First of all, I still have strong reservations about this as I really > > don't like the hard-coded, something called by this name getting used > > and would much prefer it being explicitly specified... > > Me too, but we can't just drop the feature now, because Dell will scream.. again.. Yeah, sigh. > > We really need to stop polluting the flags namespace and come up with a > > better way of passing this around. If we're going to do it, it could at > > least be in the anaconda class instead > > Right now we do not have any other "information object" to store this kind of information But you're not using the dlabel value anywhere where we don't also have a reference to the anaconda object, so I think you can get away with not putting it into flags. The line between flags and the anaconda object is definitely blurred these days. > > We use actual mount(8) now instead of calling mount(2). This means that > > we can just do 'mount LABEL=foo /bar' and don't need any of the blkid > > bits. > > We do, because there might be more driverdiscs with the same "oemdrv" label I don't think we're likely to ever run into this case. However, just to be safe I suppose we should keep the blkid method. > > As I said in the intro, I really don't want auto-mounting code -- we > > should instead just use dd=LABEL=foo and let them pass that... > > I agree with you, but the problem is Dell, they think that passing arguments is > "bad customer experience". We tried very hard to avoid it.. and the only compromise > we were able to negotiate was that, this will be disabled by default in Fedora. As much as I'd like to say that we should just have it defaulted to disabled always since it's Fedora and we don't care, I know this means we will forget to defaulting it to on when it comes time to make a new RHEL. I guess I don't know what to do here. > >> - if self.anaconda.id.extraModules: > >> + if self.anaconda.id.extraModules or flags.dlabel: > > It is the second RFE they have, sometimes their driverdisc doesn't contain any modules, > so extraModules is empty, but the repository on the driverdisc is not. And they want to > install some stuff using it. Again without any user interaction and without kickstart. > > We were at least able to tell them a way, which didn't need any code chnages, except this > one (using comps.xml file in the repo). Look at #316631. Yeah I remember this discussion and grudgingly agree. - Chris _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
