rfc: expectations for partitioning, Fedora.next

[Mike Ruckman]

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:47:45 -0700
Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote:

> 
> On Feb 21, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Mike Ruckman <roshi at fedoraproject.org>
> wrote:
> > 
> > The hard part, IMO, is figuring out what 'common configurations'
> > should be included with the installer.
> 
> I think the hard part is having the guts to make a subjective, yet
> reasonably well informed decision, and just stick to it. Harder for
> some than others is ignoring the peripheral squawking that ensues,
> but is easier when reminded that 99% of those people aren't the
> intended target market for this path.
> 
> The ideological decision, is that there should be no partition scheme
> option. Not which one should be chosen. If I bemoan Btrfs vanishing
> from the Automatic/guided path partition scheme pop-up, give me an
> egg and tell me to suck it. Seriously.

I agree with you. The ideological decision is easy - I was just
pointing out that using terms like 'common configuration' leads to this
kind of 'what gets included when?' decision tree. I don't have any hard
opinions on how things 'should' be - I'm no expert in this arena.

> > I would imagine the answer to
> > this is going to be different for each of the WG products. I
> > wouldn't be surprised if going forward we end up with multiple
> > installers (at some point down the line) - or multiple versions of
> > anaconda.
> 
> I go in the other direction. Chop out everything that causes the
> installer to be customizable by product, and instead have a
> post-install interface that flavors the base install as a particular
> product and downloads whatever else is necessary to achieve that.
> 
> What is in common for Server and Workstation? They have to boot, and
> startup to a working prompt or gdm. That's all the installer needs to
> do to be successful. Goose. Gander. Good.
>
> I think we shoot ourselves in both feet by creating derivatives of
> the installer. Maybe it's realistic to have each product decide what,
> if anything, is hidden. But we are only talking about two products.
> The Cloud product will have images, installer isn't applicable.
> 

That sounds reasonable to me. I don't like the idea of deviating from
one installer - and I would argue against it if proposed. However, I
can see all too easily people wanting to.

> 
> Chris Murphy
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20140221/41eba288/attachment.sig>