David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 19:28 -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote: > >>My own preference is to pull the ISO directly to the local HD and eliminate >>even networking as required hardware for installation. > > > I used to do that when the installer could handle installation from a > local tree. Now it requires ISO images, I don't bother -- I always just > do it from an install tree somewhere on the network. [snip] > To clarify: I wasn't suggesting that we should _remove_ the mention of > CD/DVD from the release notes. Merely that we should make network > installation at least as prominent, since too many people don't realise > it's possible. It's possible, but it can be cumbersome, especially for newbies. As of test1(FC5), an install from .iso images on a local filesystem would prevent the installer from mounting that filesystem in the newly- installed system, even when the filesystem containing the .isos would not be formatted by the install. This may seem minor, but it is an installer limitation that makes no sense to a newbie. As of test1(FC5), an NFS install from a default installation of the previous system (FC4) would fail because the firewall on the old box prevents NFS from working. There are no error messages on the exporting system, and the error messages from the installer are cryptic. system-config-security on the previous system does not understand "nfs" as a protocol number, so you must lookup the port numbers and edit iptables by hand. [Or, more likely for newbies, turn off iptables altogether.] If your download tool gave protection 0600 (-rw-------) to the .isos on the exporting system, then the installer cannot see them, and the installer's error message does not pinpoint the problem. It's very frustrating. In short, NFS installs have not been friendly to non-experts. -- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
