On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio <fabiano@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> > Howdy! >> >> Hi Fabiano, > > > Hi Zeeshan, > >> >> >> > Since we start using libosinfo to provide the install-scripts for >> > gnome-boxes we have a pending task related to the command-line passed to >> > load the install-script. >> > Nowadays, the command-line hardcoded for Fedora format and it is okay, >> > once >> > we only support unattended-installations for Fedora's flavors of Linux. >> > But >> > the family is growing fast, fortunately. >> > >> > A few days ago Zeeshan found out how the unattended-installations work >> > on >> > Debian/Ubuntu. A few hours ago I found out how it works for OpenSuSE. >> > >> > So, our current cases are: >> > - Fedora/RHEL/CentOS: ks=hd:<device>:/<filename> >> > - OpenSuSE: autoyast=device://<device>/autoinst.xml >> > - Debian/Ubuntu: decompress the initrd, put the file into it, compress >> > again >> > and boot with this fresh compressed initrd. >> > >> > The 3rd method is also supported by Fedora/RHEL/CentOS, but is not by >> > OpenSuSE). >> > Ah, so bad, looks like we don't have a standard way to follow. >> >> One important thing to note is that according to the documentation, >> the same method we use for Fedora should also work for Debian/Ubuntu >> so this initrd repacking method is a work around to a bug. We should >> file a bug on Debian/Ubuntu about this and use this workaround in Apps >> for now. Libosinfo should simply provide working installer scripts for >> Debian/Ubuntu. > > > I don't know if it's supposed to work in the same way that Fedora does. > After your successfully with Debian I re-read the docs and they are not > exactly clear about that. I could understand that the expected file is the > new initrd, with the preseed file. > >> >> >> > I'm going to add OpenSuSE install-scripts for Libosinfo and I think we >> > will >> > want to use these scripts on Boxes. >> >> Yup. Sounds right. >> >> > Thinking a bit here, at least for Fedora* and OpenSuSE, we could add a >> > property in the install-scripts, "command-line-format" to specify the >> > format. Something contenting: >> > - installation method (ks, autoyast) -- could be represented by "!" >> >> What would '!' say to app? Do they substitute it with 'ks' or >> 'autoyast'? Why not just give them 'ks' or 'autoyast' itself? > > > Answered above, my bad. Where? I don't follow. >> >> > - installation method option (hd, device) - could be represented by "@" >> >> Again why use a variable and how does app know what it means for each >> script/os? > > > > Same here. Same confusion here too then. :) >> >> >> > - device where the script will be put in (sda, sdb) - could be >> > represented >> > by "#" >> >> Now is this something that really should come from app but thing is >> that app is already providing this in installer config. >> >> What I suggest is that we also use XSL template (just like the script >> template) for generating this commandline for the app. App will pass >> the same install config as it will for generation of scripts. > > > I will try to draft something in this way in the next days and then I will > return to this discussion with a patch. I think the things are clear enough > to start a draft Cool. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
