[Fedora-livecd-list] pilgrim livecd work

[David Zeuthen]

On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 15:19 +0200, Chitlesh GOORAH wrote:
> For the past 3 days, we have talked and talked. SO WHAT IS NEXT ?

Right :-)

> 
> The kadischi's development community isn't that huge, 3 at most. And
> soon we will have 4 mechanism for creating fedora livecds.
> - Kadischi
> - pilgrim
> - Jeremy's code
> - Jane Dogalt's work
> 
> To my guess, the last three has one developper ? That makes us around
> 6 working for the same output, a fedora livecd!

Yea.

Btw, technically I'm more aiming for something that can be described as
tools for easily rolling bootable (and optionally installable) images of
software from yum repositories. This is a bit more abstract... but I'm
aiming for something that projects like OLPC can use too. It's ambitious
but, I think, doable. 

I think one key point here is that I want to make it extremely simple to
do (derived) distributions based on Fedora. With pilgrim this simply
becomes 

 1. provide a yum repo with the packages you fork (including one 
    package mydistro-release that Provides: fedora-release).

 2. write a pilgrim stream definition file. 

 3. roll an installable cd / dvd

 4. ???

 5. profit

> Thus, why not work together to make something _centralized_ ? Just
> like fedora likes to do.
> I've been to the Kadischi Project since January, and I feel our goals
> are fading away due to lack of communcation with other fedora
> projects.
> 
> Rahul did reveal something, a LiveCD can be used for:
> - Freemedia, lower the expenses (Max would be happy)
> - unleashKDE, more contributors to KDE (i'll be happy and Rex too:) )
> 
> Can we make kadischi a centralized tool for livecd generation but with plugins ?
> By plugins, I mean
> 
> 
> kadischi package:
> 
> - /usr/bin/kadischi-pilgrim
> - /usr/bin/kadischi-anaconda
> - kadischi core
> - post install scripts
> 
> Both certainly have the same core and similar post -install scripts,
> but the methods vary.
> 
> /usr/bin/kadischi-pilgrim calls for core and uses yum and doesn't
> depends on anaconda and finally uses common post install scripts .
> Output a livecd image
> 
> if /usr/bin/kadischi-anaconda calls for core and uses anaconda and
> finally uses common post install scripts . Output a livecd image.
> 
> Hence, we all can work on "kadischi core" and both David and Jasper
> will be happy (I guess).
>
> David, do you think that this may be posssible with the OLPC project.
> Jasper,  what do you think about it ?

Well, I'm not sure it's a good idea to have two code paths for two
different kinds of configuration. In general one should try to minimize
the amount of options in the sake of at least keeping the code simple.

Also, I hate to sound like an asshole, but I pretty much think pilgrim
is done (except for the install use case but that's really outside of
pilgrim) and fits the bill for at least the OLPC and Fedora live CD use
cases. To be honest, I'm just not sure how it can be combined in a
meaningful way with Kadischi or Anaconda or even what the benefits would
be. Any takers?

There's also the point that at least Jasper and I have differing views
on what an "installable livecd" is cf. the earlier mails today... and as
such this great affects how the architecture of the tool set is going to
look like.

But, sure, having multiple similar competing projects sucks badly but,
then again... such is open source. Anyone can write what they want and
new projects can surface which might jeopardize existing projects. IN a
bizarre way it's also a bit healthy and helps keep people on guard and
productive :-) - but now I'm digressing...

    David