Why can't the hard disk partition use the same logic as NFS and URL installs?
G.Wolfe Woodbury wrote:
The "local disk" installation option is limited to using ISO images
for installation, while NFS and URL (http and ftp) installs will use
*either* ISOs or repository trees.
The question is why?
Well, that would require logic like nfs/nfsiso uses, or the patches that
I summited, see the my postings: memory usage and stage2= ??
To me it appears that this is a very limiting situation, and that
the local partition should also be able to contain *either* form of
That is what my patches do, but with a boot prompt option
Is is just that the local partition option is buried so deep in
the heart of history that it can't be changed easily? I would think
that the developers would simply find a way to specify the source of
packages once and for all, and then let the rest of the install use a
uniform interface. After all, the current method is to loop mount
ISOs and then access packages as if they were repos.
Again, why not use a local partition the same way. Of course, it
would not be prudent to read and write to the sources partition at
the same time, but I suspect that the experienced users could live
with a restriction that the source not be on a partition that is going
to be the target of an install.
Allowing "local partition" installs to use either form would enable
something like using a USB storage unit to be the source for multiple
That was my intention, maybe a custom repo, or adding updates.img to the
usb. As a bonus stage2 is not copied to ram, just loop-mounted. I can't
see the need to change disks with a usb drive.
(I haven't the skills to actually modify the code, or else I would
submit patches. I'm an administrator and tester, using the installer
a lot, no longer a developer or coder.)
Thanks, this maybe what is needed to get my patches in.
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list