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

[Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)]

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.

Sure, that would be the correct thing to do keeping the current
meaning of 'installer' flag but I was trying to make a case for maybe
changing the meaning. Even with the changed meaning, installer=false
would be correct for these media since you can't do auto-install from
them.


-- 
Regards,

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