List of previous issues with livecd-tools which should be addressed

[Jasper Hartline]

This is a list of previous issues with livecd-tools
which Dhuff was working on or looking at.

> From what I can tell the first item in that list was committed, as was
> number 7. 
Number 9 is irrelevant since we don't want to use a host's syslinux
files because
you don't want to for example be copying files from the host to the
target, if you're building Live images
which the host and target architectures don't match. For example
building a x86_64 LiveCD from
i686 host. (Which people say cannot be done, but it can by hardcoding
repo information in your kickstarts)
Also related, is that in F14 syslinux does not have a Perl dependency
anymore anyways.

Number 10 has been committed, in fact it was a duplicate of another
bug which is closed and committed.
Number 11 is the above number 10's duplicate.

Number 12 is a duplicate of another bug, but the other one has a patch
which is here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604942


The rest still need to be reviewed and committed/or not.

Original Message:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/livecd/2010-May/005812.html

List:
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/livecd/2010-May/005797.html
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=587411
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/livecd/2010-April/005764.html
>  Next two are related to post above
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448030
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=582051
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/livecd/2010-April/005765.html
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583658
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/livecd/2010-March/005762.html
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/livecd/2010-March/005714.html
>  (partially related to the syslinux perl issue I mentioned before)
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/livecd/2010-April/005768.html
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=588622
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530308 
Bruno, I see that there was one you said you would review over the
weekend over a month ago
but didn't update the bug report. If you need some assistance doing
testing and or rolling up changes
to get committed and packages rebuilt let me know, seems maybe you are
backed up by something.

If there is any other feedback people can provide that would be helpful also.

[Mads Kiilerich]

On 08/13/2010 09:08 PM, Jasper Hartline wrote:
>  This is a list of previous issues with livecd-tools
>  which Dhuff was working on or looking at.
>
> > From what I can tell the first item in that list was committed, as was number 7.
>
>  Number 9 
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/livecd/2010-March/005714.html

>  is irrelevant since we don't want to use a host's syslinux
>  files because
>  you don't want to for example be copying files from the host to the
>  target, if you're building Live images
>  which the host and target architectures don't match. For example
>  building a x86_64 LiveCD from
>  i686 host. (Which people say cannot be done, but it can by hardcoding
>  repo information in your kickstarts) 
I am people, but I assume you meant the opposite: building a i686 LiveCD 
from a x86_64 host?

Ok, that is one reason for not using the build systems syslinux. But 
syslinux is still not really needed in the image and thus adds 3 Mb (?) 
without reason. Perhaps we could extract the relevant files from the rpm 
without installing it. Ok, someone would have to provide a patch for 
that ...

>  Also related, is that in F14 syslinux does not have a Perl
> dependency
>  anymore anyways. 
I thought that too, but syslinux-4.02-1.fc14.i686.rpm do require perl 
according to http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=2109166 ???

/Mads

[Jasper Hartline]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Mads Kiilerich <mads(a)kiilerich.com&gt; wrote:
>  I am people, but I assume you meant the opposite: building a i686 LiveCD
>  from a x86_64 host? 
Right, in cases where the host machine is not the same as the target.

>  Ok, that is one reason for not using the build systems syslinux. But
>  syslinux is still not really needed in the image and thus adds 3 Mb (?)
>  without reason. Perhaps we could extract the relevant files from the rpm
>  without installing it. Ok, someone would have to provide a patch for that
>  ... 
I suppose. But I've already been working on trying to get syslinux
moved to the base DVD
where someone doesn't require having to rsync the 20GB Everything tree
to create LiveCDs.

I am not sure how a savings of 3MB really comes into play.
Is there something more important I am not actually seeing here than just a 3MB
package, which actually lets the LiveCD have a method of bootloading?


> > Also related, is that in F14 syslinux does not have a Perl
> dependency
> > anymore anyways.
>
>  I thought that too, but syslinux-4.02-1.fc14.i686.rpm do require perl
>  according to http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=2109166 ??? 
Odd. Well. Here is what syslinux contains that are Perl scripts:
[root@localhost tmp]# file $(rpm -ql syslinux) | grep perl
/usr/bin/isohybrid.pl:                                             a
/usr/bin/perl script text executable
/usr/bin/keytab-lilo:                                              a
/usr/bin/perl script text executable
/usr/bin/lss16toppm:                                               a
/usr/bin/perl script text executable
/usr/bin/md5pass:                                                  a
/usr/bin/perl script text executable
/usr/bin/mkdiskimage:                                              a
/usr/bin/perl script text executable
/usr/bin/ppmtolss16:                                               a
/usr/bin/perl script text executable
/usr/bin/pxelinux-options:                                         a
/usr/bin/perl script text executable
/usr/bin/sha1pass:                                                 a
/usr/bin/perl script text executable
/usr/bin/syslinux2ansi:                                            a
/usr/bin/perl script text executable
[root@localhost tmp]#

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 13:21:15 -0700,
  Jasper Hartline <jasper.hartline(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  I suppose. But I've already been working on trying to get syslinux
>  moved to the base DVD
>  where someone doesn't require having to rsync the 20GB Everything tree
>  to create LiveCDs. 
You can create a local repo with just syslinux in it to work around this.

>  I am not sure how a savings of 3MB really comes into play. 
For some of the LiveCD images that much space is significant. For most of the
DVD images (other than perhaps games), it wouldn't be a big deal.

>  > I thought that too, but syslinux-4.02-1.fc14.i686.rpm do require
> perl
>  > according to http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=2109166 ???
>  
>  Odd. Well. Here is what syslinux contains that are Perl scripts: 
I think only some of the work needed for this has been completed. This is
one of the reasons some of the LiveCD images are currently oversized.

[Jasper Hartline]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to&gt; wrote:
>  On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 13:21:15 -0700,
>   Jasper Hartline <jasper.hartline(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> >
> > I suppose. But I've already been working on trying to get syslinux
> > moved to the base DVD
> > where someone doesn't require having to rsync the 20GB Everything tree
> > to create LiveCDs.
>
>  You can create a local repo with just syslinux in it to work around this. 
This is not acceptable for users. In a specific case like just me
scenario, I surely can copy
everything from the DVD to disk, and then put syslinux there and it's deps and
run createrepo, this is too much for the general population though.

The purpose behind this as I've stated before is not just to benefit myself.
It is to benefit the users of LiveCD and users of livecd-tools to have a
very simple way without much effort to start creating a LiveCD media.

Also the DVD is read-only, I can't just mount the DVD and run create repo on it.
I am not personally looking for a workaround to the issue, it is for
the benefit of
users who don't know that createrepo even exists but do know what a
kickstart file is
and a repository source is in the form of a URL.

> > I am not sure how a savings of 3MB really comes into play.
>
>  For some of the LiveCD images that much space is significant. For most of the
>  DVD images (other than perhaps games), it wouldn't be a big deal. 
I am pretty sure Mads is talking about the user created livecd, not
the official spins.
Have you actually talked to Kevin and asked him about the current size
of the LiveCD
and if doing what Mads is suggesting would be a benefit?

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 13:38:44 -0700,
  Jasper Hartline <jasper.hartline(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  This is not acceptable for users. In a specific case like just me
>  scenario, I surely can copy
>  everything from the DVD to disk, and then put syslinux there and it's deps and
>  run createrepo, this is too much for the general population though. 
I was suggesting only using syslinux in the local repo. The DVD repo would
also get used, so you wouldn't need to copy it over as well. Either way you
need to edit the repo definitions in the ks file, so I don;'t think adding
(or modifying) two instead of one is that big of a deal.

>  Also the DVD is read-only, I can't just mount the DVD and run
> create repo on it.
>  I am not personally looking for a workaround to the issue, it is for
>  the benefit of
>  users who don't know that createrepo even exists but do know what a
>  kickstart file is
>  and a repository source is in the form of a URL. 
It's been a while since we had this discussion. Did you ever request that
Desktop add this to the install DVD? I wouldn't expect it to be an issue
there.

>  I am pretty sure Mads is talking about the user created livecd, not
>  the official spins.
>  Have you actually talked to Kevin and asked him about the current size
>  of the LiveCD
>  and if doing what Mads is suggesting would be a benefit? 
There have been some discussions about desktop's livecd image being oversize.
So far the result has been to wait until syslinux is fixed to not require
perl. If it looks like that won't happen for F14 (I am not sure what the
status is), then we may want to try something else.

[Jasper Hartline]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to&gt; wrote:
> > This is not acceptable for users. In a specific case like just
> me
> > scenario, I surely can copy
> > everything from the DVD to disk, and then put syslinux there and it's deps and
> > run createrepo, this is too much for the general population though.
>
>  I was suggesting only using syslinux in the local repo. The DVD repo would
>  also get used, so you wouldn't need to copy it over as well. Either way you
>  need to edit the repo definitions in the ks file, so I don;'t think adding
>  (or modifying) two instead of one is that big of a deal. 
Currently that is not the case. I have already tested this and
The repository where syslinux comes from is the one that gets used
regardless of repo --cost definitions, there is a bug filed on Yum for
this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591835

Also, you mention modifying and creating local repositories, and users shouldn't
be required to know how to create local repositories unless they are wanting
to remix specific out-of-Fedora tree packages.

For the normal user case and for the general population it is not neccessary.
What makes more sense is to move syslinux to the base GA media DVD to
avoid all of this.


> > Also the DVD is read-only, I can't just mount the DVD and run
> create repo on it.
> > I am not personally looking for a workaround to the issue, it is for
> > the benefit of
> > users who don't know that createrepo even exists but do know what a
> > kickstart file is
> > and a repository source is in the form of a URL.
>
>  It's been a while since we had this discussion. Did you ever request that
>  Desktop add this to the install DVD? I wouldn't expect it to be an issue
>  there. 
The install DVD is what I am talking about. Never once did I enter into this
discussion about syslinux being on the base DVD in reference to "LIVE" DVD.

This is detracting from the original thread however and I have in fact
talked to pjones
about it, he doesn't see a problem with it at all, but he is also not the person
that decides what goes where.


> > I am pretty sure Mads is talking about the user created livecd,
> not
> > the official spins.
> > Have you actually talked to Kevin and asked him about the current size
> > of the LiveCD
> > and if doing what Mads is suggesting would be a benefit?
>
>  There have been some discussions about desktop's livecd image being oversize.
>  So far the result has been to wait until syslinux is fixed to not require
>  perl. If it looks like that won't happen for F14 (I am not sure what the
>  status is), then we may want to try something else. 
I'm trying to find out right now who to talk to about it.

[Jasper Hartline]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Mads Kiilerich <mads(a)kiilerich.com&gt; wrote:

>  Ok, that is one reason for not using the build systems syslinux. But
>  syslinux is still not really needed in the image and thus adds 3 Mb (?)
>  without reason. 
I also forgot to mention:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=448030

Creating a bootable LiveUSB stick from the running LiveCD.
This would require syslinux or grub on the target also.

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:08:50 +0200, Jasper Hartline wrote:
>  If there is any other feedback people can provide that would be
> helpful also. 
[Fedora-livecd-list] auto-biarch (x86_64 + i686) LiveUSBFlash [Re: auto-biarch (x86_64 +
i686) LiveDVD patch + ISO]
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/livecd/2010-March/005755.html

That is a single USBFlash to boot both on i686 and x86_64.  Otherwise I would
need to carry two flashes - one to recover my system (x86_64) and one to boot
on some old 32bit only PCs in the world.

Could F14 provide an officially distributed single "ultimate" image?

The script above could build for F12 both two custom Live ISOs and the final
combined bi-arch Live USBFlash drive.

The same script works for F13 but only combining the final USBFlash from two
pre-built Live ISO images.  I haven't debugged the F13 ISO build there so far.


Thanks,
Jan

[Jasper Hartline]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Jan Kratochvil
<jan.kratochvil(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:08:50 +0200, Jasper Hartline wrote:
> > If there is any other feedback people can provide that would be helpful also.
>
>  [Fedora-livecd-list] auto-biarch (x86_64 + i686) LiveUSBFlash [Re: auto-biarch (x86_64 +
> i686) LiveDVD patch + ISO]
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/livecd/2010-March/005755.html
>
>  That is a single USBFlash to boot both on i686 and x86_64.  Otherwise I would
>  need to carry two flashes - one to recover my system (x86_64) and one to boot
>  on some old 32bit only PCs in the world.
>
>  Could F14 provide an officially distributed single "ultimate" image? 
Good we have a record of this on the list and in this thread.
This might be a good thing to bring up to release engineering team.

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 14:00:08 -0700,
  Jasper Hartline <jasper.hartline(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Jan Kratochvil
>  <jan.kratochvil(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  > [Fedora-livecd-list] auto-biarch (x86_64 + i686) LiveUSBFlash [Re: auto-biarch
> (x86_64 + i686) LiveDVD patch + ISO]
>  > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/livecd/2010-March/005755.html
>  >
>  > That is a single USBFlash to boot both on i686 and x86_64.  Otherwise I would
>  > need to carry two flashes - one to recover my system (x86_64) and one to boot
>  > on some old 32bit only PCs in the world.
>  >
>  > Could F14 provide an officially distributed single "ultimate" image?
>  
>  Good we have a record of this on the list and in this thread.
>  This might be a good thing to bring up to release engineering team. 
This got talked about a bit, but I think is was close to when the SIG meetings
started getting poorly attended and the proposal didn't end up going anywhere,
though some of us though it was a useful idea. (Currently the way rescue
works, you want to boot on the same arch as the one you are trying to rescue.)

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:00:08 +0200, Jasper Hartline wrote:
>  On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Jan Kratochvil
> <jan.kratochvil(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  > On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:08:50 +0200, Jasper Hartline wrote:
>  > Could F14 provide an officially distributed single "ultimate" image?
>  
>  Good we have a record of this on the list and in this thread.
>  This might be a good thing to bring up to release engineering team. 
Release engineering should solve whether/when/how to ship the built images.

Still the question remains how to build such images.  The script above works
but it is really just a gross hack.

I am asking here how it should be designed.  It is now a shell script, it
should be probably integrated either into livecd-creator or
livecd-iso-to-disk.  I find it most suitable to build directly the USBFlash
disk from the two ISO images, as I do no understand why ISO images are still
being made.  Still I expect people will probably want bi-arch ISO, not just
USBFlash (do they?).  Also I tried if anybody would not want to integrate it
into livecd-creator (and then even livecd-iso-to-disk to keep it compatible
with bi-arch ISOs), due to some issues with Python.  Probably not.

Therefore asking at least for preliminary approval of the design to get later
the bi-arch support accepted into livecd-creator (and livecd-iso-to-disk).


Thanks,
Jan

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 22:53:33 +0200,
  Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  
>  [Fedora-livecd-list] auto-biarch (x86_64 + i686) LiveUSBFlash [Re: auto-biarch (x86_64 +
> i686) LiveDVD patch + ISO]
>  http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/livecd/2010-March/005755.html
>  
>  That is a single USBFlash to boot both on i686 and x86_64.  Otherwise I would
>  need to carry two flashes - one to recover my system (x86_64) and one to boot
>  on some old 32bit only PCs in the world.
>  
>  Could F14 provide an officially distributed single "ultimate" image? 
We are past the time for new F14 spins to be proposed. However I do think
having a way to build biarch images is useful, particularly for rescue images.

A sane script to do this, would likely be accepted as an addition to
livecd-tools.

[Richard Shaw]

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to&gt; wrote:
>  We are past the time for new F14 spins to be proposed. However I do
> think
>  having a way to build biarch images is useful, particularly for rescue images.
>
>  A sane script to do this, would likely be accepted as an addition to
>  livecd-tools. 
Is the question, "How do we create multi-arch live CDs?" or "How do
you create a script that will build a multi-arch live CD?"

As far as the first question goes, I think something like System
Rescue CD would be a good model to follow. It has 32bit and 64bit
kernels but only one initrd and one system image...

As to the second question, I would have to learn how to do the first
one first :) I have OK programming skills but I'm limited to python by
experience and a little bash hacking.

Richard

[Jasper Hartline]

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Bruno Wolff III
> <bruno(a)wolff.to&gt; wrote:
> > We are past the time for new F14 spins to be proposed. However I do think
> > having a way to build biarch images is useful, particularly for rescue images.
> >
> > A sane script to do this, would likely be accepted as an addition to
> > livecd-tools.
>
>  Is the question, "How do we create multi-arch live CDs?" or "How do
>  you create a script that will build a multi-arch live CD?"
>
>  As far as the first question goes, I think something like System
>  Rescue CD would be a good model to follow. It has 32bit and 64bit
>  kernels but only one initrd and one system image...
>
>  As to the second question, I would have to learn how to do the first
>  one first :) I have OK programming skills but I'm limited to python by
>  experience and a little bash hacking. 
I'm pretty sure the better thing to do would be to have the bi-arch
shell script as a tool added just like edit-livecd has been added.

I do not think changing the whole model is going to solve anything,
especially since
the current model is just fine and does what it should.
Building a bi-arch rescue disc or USB image is an addon-feature
not a core-function.

[Richard Shaw]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Jasper Hartline
<jasper.hartline(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  This is a list of previous issues with livecd-tools 
[SNIP]
>  Number 12 is a duplicate of another bug, but the other one has a
> patch
>  which is here:
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604942 
I would like this one, but I'm biased, as it is my patch. :)

All kidding aside, it would be nice to not have to maintain my own
version of the script. It works well for netbooks where you want a
minimal install and don't have USB optical drives handy. I don't have
a USB thumb drive that will hold the full DVD installer and it's my
only non-x86_64 machine so I don't bother to download the full DVD
installer.

Thanks,
Richard

[Jasper Hartline]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Jasper Hartline
>  <jasper.hartline(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> > This is a list of previous issues with livecd-tools
>  [SNIP]
> > Number 12 is a duplicate of another bug, but the other one has a patch
> > which is here:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604942
>
>  I would like this one, but I'm biased, as it is my patch. :)
>
>  All kidding aside, it would be nice to not have to maintain my own
>  version of the script. It works well for netbooks where you want a
>  minimal install and don't have USB optical drives handy. I don't have
>  a USB thumb drive that will hold the full DVD installer and it's my
>  only non-x86_64 machine so I don't bother to download the full DVD
>  installer. 
I agree. This should be queued up by Bruno to commit.
He said he was planning on doing some patch rollups or some testing of
some reviews
and since we allow using the DVD ISO with livecd-iso-to-disk
there is no reason we should not have the netinstall ISO treated properly.

It would be one thing if we didn't have DVD ISO functionality built
into livecd-iso-to-disk
but we do, and this should be a completely transparent difference to users who
find out livecd-iso-to-disk can be used on Install media or the
Official Live CD media.
Netinstall ISO falls into the category of install media.

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 17:00:31 -0500,
  Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Jasper Hartline
>  <jasper.hartline(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  > This is a list of previous issues with livecd-tools
>  [SNIP]
>  > Number 12 is a duplicate of another bug, but the other one has a patch
>  > which is here:
>  > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604942
>  
>  I would like this one, but I'm biased, as it is my patch. :)
>  
>  All kidding aside, it would be nice to not have to maintain my own
>  version of the script. It works well for netbooks where you want a
>  minimal install and don't have USB optical drives handy. I don't have
>  a USB thumb drive that will hold the full DVD installer and it's my
>  only non-x86_64 machine so I don't bother to download the full DVD
>  installer. 
A modified version of this one has been committed.