[Libosinfo] [PATCH 01/10] install-script: Add some missing docs

[Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)]

On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
<zeeshanak at gnome.org> wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 01:19:16PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
>>> <zeeshanak at gnome.org> wrote:
>>> > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 07:12:56PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>>> >>> On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Christophe Fergeau <cfergeau at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> >>> > On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 05:29:49PM +0100, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) wrote:
>>> >>> >> Not exactly. It also never worked for live ISO and that is not a major
>>> >>> >> issue since UIs aren't supposed to offer automatic installer against
>>> >>> >> live medias.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Is this documented somewhere?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> This question made me go catch an Anaconda dev:
>>> >>
>>> >> I was asking if this is documented somewhere in libosinfo API
>>> >> documentation. Also note that your statement is « UIs aren't supposed to
>>> >> offer automatic installer against live medias. », not « UIs aren't
>>> >> supposed to offer automatic installer against Fedora live medias ».
>>> >
>>> > Oh, I thought the latter sentence would be self-evident to you so I
>>> > thought you must be asking about the former.
>>> >
>>> > We have a 'installer' flag on media and media that do not provider
>>> > installers are supposed to have it 'false'. AFAIK the idea of that
>>> > flag was to inform applications that this media does not do
>>> > installation. However, now that you mentioned it, I see that we don't
>>> > set those on any of the live Fedora media. I think we should.
>>>
>>> Looking more into the git history, I now remember that "installer"
>>> flag indicates if media provides installation or not. Since its
>>> possible to do installation from Fedora live medias (just like with
>>> kickstart), installer=true (which is default) is correct for them.
>>>
>>> Having said that, at least Boxes doesn't look at this flag and since i
>>> don't really know of any purely live media (GNOME used to produce them
>>> but not any more afaik) and I don't see how this distinction of purely
>>> live or not would be of any benefit to apps, I wonder if we could
>>> simply change of 'installer' flag to whether or not media supports
>>> automated installation?
>>
>> Actually, I think installer=false would make sense for disk 2, 3, 4 in
>> the media entries for older fedoras. You probably can't boot nor start
>> an install from these, you need to use the first disk.
>
> Sure, that would be the correct thing to do keeping the current
> meaning of 'installer' flag but I was trying to make a case for maybe
> changing the meaning. Even with the changed meaning, installer=false
> would be correct for these media since you can't do auto-install from
> them.

Hmm.. and actually we don't need to change the meaning of installer
flag too much. It could just mean whether or not you can boot into
installation from the media. Fedora's live ISO don't provide that
option and the ones that do (ubuntu), they also support auto install.
Actually this could also enable Boxes to decide whether or not to
present autoinstall option for OS that only provides live media (e.g
Ubuntu).

-- 
Regards,

Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
________________________________________
Befriend GNOME: http://www.gnome.org/friends/