2 commits - imgcreate/errors.py imgcreate/live.py

[Jeremy Katz]

imgcreate/errors.py |    2 ++
 imgcreate/live.py   |    3 +++
 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)

New commits:
commit 2ef4083a8c1adea520dc22bc43ae4ceb65dc85de
Author: Jeremy Katz 
Date:   Mon Jul 20 21:26:23 2009 -0400

Make live image a hybrid

Use isohybrid if available so that images can be dd'd to a usb
    stick.  Note that there's still some initrd changes required for
    this to be fully functional

diff --git a/imgcreate/live.py b/imgcreate/live.py
index a4914e0..b98f7b3 100644
--- a/imgcreate/live.py
+++ b/imgcreate/live.py
@@ -248,6 +248,9 @@ class LiveImageCreatorBase(LoopImageCreator):
         if subprocess.call(args) != 0:
             raise CreatorError("ISO creation failed!")

+        if os.path.exists("/usr/bin/isohybrid"):
+            subprocess.call(["/usr/bin/isohybrid", iso])
+
         self.__implant_md5sum(iso)

def __implant_md5sum(self, iso):

commit 733f9ce7b96ed492e4b974b089fa647db569e957
Author: Jeremy Katz 
Date:   Thu Jul 9 13:44:12 2009 -0400

Include new error definition which I apparently didn't commit

diff --git a/imgcreate/errors.py b/imgcreate/errors.py
index a29b841..800dc3b 100644
--- a/imgcreate/errors.py
+++ b/imgcreate/errors.py
@@ -52,3 +52,5 @@ class SnapshotError(CreatorError):
     pass
 class SquashfsError(CreatorError):
     pass
+class ResizeError(CreatorError):
+    pass

isohybrid versus livecd-iso-to-disk

[Marc Herbert]

Jeremy,

I am currently using livecd-iso-to-disk to create USB images. How does this isohybrid technique compare to it? Is it meant to replace it in the future?

Cheers,

Marc

Jeremy Katz a écrit :
> New commits:
> commit 2ef4083a8c1adea520dc22bc43ae4ceb65dc85de
> Author: Jeremy Katz 
> Date:   Mon Jul 20 21:26:23 2009 -0400
> Make live image a hybrid
>
> Use isohybrid if available so that images can be dd'd to a usb
> stick.  Note that there's still some initrd changes required for
> this to be fully functional

isohybrid versus livecd-iso-to-disk

[Jeremy Katz]

On Friday, July 24 2009, Marc Herbert said:
> I am currently using livecd-iso-to-disk to create USB images. How does this isohybrid 
> technique compare to it? Is it meant to replace it in the future?

livecd-iso-to-disk (or really liveusb-creator) is always going to be the
"preferred" way of creating a USB image.  With the tool you get the
advantage that it's a non-destructive operation, you can set up things
like persistence and you can mount and use the disk "normally" to hold
more stuff.

isohybrid, though, is nice for a quick trial run or for people on a
platform that livecd-iso-to-disk/liveusb-creator can't work due to an
inability to run syslinux or other reasons (OS/X being the obvious big
one, probably the rest of the BSDs as well)

Jeremy