On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 01:19:16PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) >> <zeeshanak@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 07:12:56PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> >>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 05:29:49PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote: >> >>> >> Not exactly. It also never worked for live ISO and that is not a major >> >>> >> issue since UIs aren't supposed to offer automatic installer against >> >>> >> live medias. >> >>> > >> >>> > Is this documented somewhere? >> >>> >> >>> This question made me go catch an Anaconda dev: >> >> >> >> I was asking if this is documented somewhere in libosinfo API >> >> documentation. Also note that your statement is « UIs aren't supposed to >> >> offer automatic installer against live medias. », not « UIs aren't >> >> supposed to offer automatic installer against Fedora live medias ». >> > >> > Oh, I thought the latter sentence would be self-evident to you so I >> > thought you must be asking about the former. >> > >> > We have a 'installer' flag on media and media that do not provider >> > installers are supposed to have it 'false'. AFAIK the idea of that >> > flag was to inform applications that this media does not do >> > installation. However, now that you mentioned it, I see that we don't >> > set those on any of the live Fedora media. I think we should. >> >> Looking more into the git history, I now remember that "installer" >> flag indicates if media provides installation or not. Since its >> possible to do installation from Fedora live medias (just like with >> kickstart), installer=true (which is default) is correct for them. >> >> Having said that, at least Boxes doesn't look at this flag and since i >> don't really know of any purely live media (GNOME used to produce them >> but not any more afaik) and I don't see how this distinction of purely >> live or not would be of any benefit to apps, I wonder if we could >> simply change of 'installer' flag to whether or not media supports >> automated installation? > > Actually, I think installer=false would make sense for disk 2, 3, 4 in > the media entries for older fedoras. You probably can't boot nor start > an install from these, you need to use the first disk. Sure, that would be the correct thing to do keeping the current meaning of 'installer' flag but I was trying to make a case for maybe changing the meaning. Even with the changed meaning, installer=false would be correct for these media since you can't do auto-install from them. -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) ________________________________________ Befriend GNOME: http://www.gnome.org/friends/ _______________________________________________ Libosinfo mailing list Libosinfo@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libosinfo
