6:16 a.m.
Hi
Boot.iso images are not in the usual location as other images. Either we
need to move it or alteast provide a symlink since many end users are
not aware of its presence.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2007-June/msg00430.html
Comments?
Rahul
8:11 a.m.
On Saturday 02 June 2007 07:16:34 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Boot.iso images are not in the usual location as other images. Either
we
need to move it or alteast provide a symlink since many end users are
not aware of its presence.
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2007-June/msg00430.html
AFAIK boot.iso has never been in that directory, it has always been in the
images/ directory, along with the images for USB / PXE and such. We recently
(FC6?) put the rescue iso into the isos/ directory for better finding, and
I'm up for renaming this iso to something difference since it is confusing
that the rescue iso can do installs too.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
8:19 a.m.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Saturday 02 June 2007 07:16:34 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Boot.iso images are not in the usual location as other images. Either we
> need to move it or alteast provide a symlink since many end users are
> not aware of its presence.
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2007-June/msg00430.html
AFAIK boot.iso has never been in that directory, it has always been in the
images/ directory, along with the images for USB / PXE and such.
Can't you move that all into a single location or provide a symlink? It
has always been like that way in the past isn't a sufficient reason to
justify the lack of visibility and awareness of the presence of boot.iso.
Every release I see claims that Fedora does not support easy network
installation due to this tree structure.
Rahul
8:28 a.m.
On Saturday 02 June 2007 09:19:54 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Can't you move that all into a single location or provide a
symlink? It
has always been like that way in the past isn't a sufficient reason to
justify the lack of visibility and awareness of the presence of boot.iso.
Every release I see claims that Fedora does not support easy network
installation due to this tree structure.
Rescue.iso is there which is even easier for network installs as it has stage2
already there.
I'm not about to go changing the tree layout after the mirrors already have
it.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
8:39 a.m.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Saturday 02 June 2007 09:19:54 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Can't you move that all into a single location or provide a symlink? It
> has always been like that way in the past isn't a sufficient reason to
> justify the lack of visibility and awareness of the presence of boot.iso.
>
> Every release I see claims that Fedora does not support easy network
> installation due to this tree structure.
Rescue.iso is there which is even easier for network installs as it has stage2
already there.
It is larger too and you call it "rescue" which does not suggest network
installation.
I'm not about to go changing the tree layout after the mirrors
already have
it.
Just in case it was not obvious I am talking about changing the tree
structure to consolidate all the images for the *next release*.
Rahul
8:41 a.m.
On Saturday 02 June 2007 09:39:55 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
It is larger too and you call it "rescue" which does not
suggest network
installation.
> I'm not about to go changing the tree layout after the mirrors already
> have it.
Just in case it was not obvious I am talking about changing the tree
structure to consolidate all the images for the *next release*.
Next release is something I would talk about, with the anaconda folks, since
they write out the boot.iso. As stated before I want to rename rescue.iso as
well so that it is more obvious that you can use it for installs.
Rescue.iso is no longer than what you'd get if you booted boot.iso and it
downloads the stage2 images to do the install, only instead of downloading it
each and every install you can have it on the media already.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
8:49 a.m.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Saturday 02 June 2007 09:39:55 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> It is larger too and you call it "rescue" which does not suggest network
> installation.
>
>> I'm not about to go changing the tree layout after the mirrors already
>> have it.
> Just in case it was not obvious I am talking about changing the tree
> structure to consolidate all the images for the *next release*.
Next release is something I would talk about, with the anaconda folks, since
they write out the boot.iso.
If they are not willing to change the location for some reason please
consider providing a symlink. IIRC the RFE I filed around FC5 time is
still open on this.
As stated before I want to rename rescue.iso as
well so that it is more obvious that you can use it for installs.
Ok.
Rahul
8:48 a.m.
On Saturday 02 June 2007 09:49:30 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If they are not willing to change the location for some reason
please
consider providing a symlink. IIRC the RFE I filed around FC5 time is
still open on this.
With a renamed rescue image, that should be what we recommend people use.
Having multiple "small" isos in there to start network installs is just
confusing. boot.iso could go away all together perhaps.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
8:55 a.m.
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 09:48:31AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
With a renamed rescue image, that should be what we recommend people
use.
Having multiple "small" isos in there to start network installs is just
confusing. boot.iso could go away all together perhaps.
+1. You have to download boot.iso now + stage2 later, or rescue.iso
now to do a network install.
5:17 p.m.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Saturday 02 June 2007 09:49:30 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> If they are not willing to change the location for some reason please
> consider providing a symlink. IIRC the RFE I filed around FC5 time is
> still open on this.
With a renamed rescue image, that should be what we recommend people use.
Having multiple "small" isos in there to start network installs is just
confusing. boot.iso could go away all together perhaps.
Any decisions on this?
Rahul
7:29 p.m.
On Thursday 28 June 2007 18:17:57 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Saturday 02 June 2007 09:49:30 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> If they are not willing to change the location for some reason please
>> consider providing a symlink. IIRC the RFE I filed around FC5 time is
>> still open on this.
>
> With a renamed rescue image, that should be what we recommend people use.
> Having multiple "small" isos in there to start network installs is just
> confusing. boot.iso could go away all together perhaps.
Any decisions on this?
Not as of yet. Frying other fish.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
6145
days inactive
6172
days old
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
10 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Chuck Anderson -
Jesse Keating -
Rahul Sundaram