[Libosinfo] Script broken for Fedora net ISO

[Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 06:21:31PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Vladimir Benes recently told me about the issue of express
>> installation and net ISOs of Fedora in Boxes. There are two issues
>> with this:
>>
>> 1. Internet is required w/o script communicating this requirement to App.
>> 2. Some remote repositories need to be setup, otherwise installer
>> waits for user to manually set them up.
>>
>> I thought of some solutions but none without any issues:
>>
>> 1. a. Add 'needs-internet' to media entries
>>     b. Pass media info to script generation functions.
>>     c. Modify fedora script to add required repos if 'needs-internet'
>>
>>     This would be my first choice but how can we implement (b) w/o breaking API.
>>
>> 2. a. Add 'internet-available' param to InstallConfig
>>     b. Modify fedora script to add required repos if 'internet-available'
>>
>>     This would add to the work of App as they'll have to check
>> availability of internet and set this. FWIW this won't be an issue for
>> Boxes at least as it already checks that to ensure scripts requiring
>> internet have it available. Perhaps we can assume that for other apps
>> too?
>>
>> 3. a. script templates specify variants supported
>>     b. Add variant info to net ISOs
>>     c. We add separate scripts for netiso variants
>>
>>     The main/first issue with this would be the fact that volume IDs
>> on ISOs are the same for both full and net installer ISOs. AFAIK this
>> is true for all distros, not just Fedora.
>>
>> Better ideas welcome!
>
> 3. sounds much better than the other alternatives. One hackish way to
> detect net install images VS full images is that the former will usually
> be much smaller than full images (100MB VS 700MB). This must correspond
> to 'volume size' in isoinfo output. The Eltorito bootoff (boot offset?)
> is different too.
> The more specific we get though, the more likely it is we have to add
> additional osinfo entries for point releases (debian/ubuntu X.Y.z
> releases)

Hmm.. didn't think of this but as you said, not only it is very
hackish but would also imply us having to add otherwise redundant
entries. How about we go for #2?


-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
________________________________________
Befriend GNOME: http://www.gnome.org/friends/