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?
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 package sources.
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 installs.
(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.)
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 package sources.
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.
yup.
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 installs.
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.
Jerry
anaconda-devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org