On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 19:10 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Jan 27, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > liveusb-creator is graphical, hence the recommendation. At the time > > these docs were originally written, it was probably equal to > > livecd-creator in functionality. > > > > livecd-creator is considerably more flexible than dd; it allows you to > > set up persistent storage and to use a stick without wiping existing > > data it contains. At the time the docs were originally written, it's > > likely dd was less reliable than it is now, and probably still had > > problems it no longer does (remember when a dd'ed DVD would not find the > > packages on the stick and would act as a netinst image, for instance). > > > > It would be fine to bring all of these more into line with modern usage, > > I think. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=810112 > > And it's so close to working. > > So do you have a preference on recommending boot.iso vs > Fedora-18-x86_64-netinst.iso? I'm leaning to recommending that > everywhere boot.iso and efiboot.img are recommended, to recommend > netins ISO instead. I think releng would be most appropriately placed to answer that. AFAIK netinst.iso is the 'publicly promoted' image, and they are indeed identical. boot.iso may be provided simply for 'backwards compatibility ' -because there's always been an image named that in that place. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
