[Libosinfo] [PATCH 01/10] install-script: Add some missing docs

[Christophe Fergeau]

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 01:19:16PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
> <zeeshanak at gnome.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 07:12:56PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
> >>> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 05:29:49PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
> >>> >> Not exactly. It also never worked for live ISO and that is not a major
> >>> >> issue since UIs aren't supposed to offer automatic installer against
> >>> >> live medias.
> >>> >
> >>> > Is this documented somewhere?
> >>>
> >>> This question made me go catch an Anaconda dev:
> >>
> >> I was asking if this is documented somewhere in libosinfo API
> >> documentation. Also note that your statement is « UIs aren't supposed to
> >> offer automatic installer against live medias. », not « UIs aren't
> >> supposed to offer automatic installer against Fedora live medias ».
> >
> > Oh, I thought the latter sentence would be self-evident to you so I
> > thought you must be asking about the former.
> >
> > We have a 'installer' flag on media and media that do not provider
> > installers are supposed to have it 'false'. AFAIK the idea of that
> > flag was to inform applications that this media does not do
> > installation. However, now that you mentioned it, I see that we don't
> > set those on any of the live Fedora media. I think we should.
> 
> Looking more into the git history, I now remember that "installer"
> flag indicates if media provides installation or not. Since its
> possible to do installation from Fedora live medias (just like with
> kickstart), installer=true (which is default) is correct for them.
> 
> Having said that, at least Boxes doesn't look at this flag and since i
> don't really know of any purely live media (GNOME used to produce them
> but not any more afaik) and I don't see how this distinction of purely
> live or not would be of any benefit to apps, I wonder if we could
> simply change of 'installer' flag to whether or not media supports
> automated installation?

Actually, I think installer=false would make sense for disk 2, 3, 4 in
the media entries for older fedoras. You probably can't boot nor start
an install from these, you need to use the first disk.

Christophe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/libosinfo/attachments/20150520/0b1fa22b/attachment.sig>