On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 11:50 +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote: > > It sounds like we can just provide install= unconditionally, same as > > we currently do with ks=? We'd have to verify doing so doesn't cause > > any unintended side-effects for existing guest types. > > I'd rather have it done in a more explicit way, just for the sake of > someone else trying to debug / understand the code later on. A comment in the code will do just fine, in my opinion. And then, when we can start relying on a new enough virt-install, we can drop the workaround with minimal fuss. Our unconditional use of ks= could also benefit from being explained in a comment, by the way. I'll post a patch for that shortly. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
