On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 03:12:11PM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 13:51 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Jesse Keating (jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > > > On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 18:38 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > > > > > Do we really have to rename it ? When doing fullvirtualized installs from > > > > an ISO using a network URL, our tools look for $URL/images/boot.iso - if it > > > > gets renamed, then existing distros won't be able to install F9 in this > > > > manner :-( > > > > > > Yes, as it's different. It now includes stage2 on it, it was the > > > rescue.iso but renamed as it does more than just rescue. > > > > It's not significantly different. It's still the only boot iso. > > The name is still open for discussion... renaming it to make the > difference clear at first is important, but the virt-inst reason might > be a good enough one to change it back Or keep around the 10 MB boot.iso in parallel with netinst.iso. As others have pointed out the tiny size of boot.iso is nice for bootstrapping purposes, and give that you still have the separate stage2 file there anyway an extra 10 MB in the images/ directory will never be noticed. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
