boot.iso vs netinst.iso vs efiboot.img

[Adam Williamson]

On Sun, 2013-01-27 at 19:10 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> 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