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)
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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
