On Thu, 2007-07-26 at 10:22 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
Jeremy Katz wrote:
> A few thoughts...
> On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 18:06 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
>> I know there may already be some similar functionality already in revisor, this
>> patch adds it to livecd-tools
>> The two new options are
> First off, at a glance, the options just look like gobbledy-gook to
> me :-) In cases like this, it's almost always better to spell out what
> is meant rather than an abbreviation that isn't immediately obvious.
aesthetics. rename however you like.
Yeah, definitely a minor quibble that's easy to resolve.
> The second thing is that having this as command-line options
leads to an
> increased chance of the live image build not being reproducible. As
> much as possible, the movement has been to specifying things within the
> kickstart config rather than having command line options for specifying
I think this is where ideals meet practicality. But to work with you, would you
be happier with a patch, where say, instead of --addsdir, there was
--add-user-system-data, which behaved exactly the same, but the implementation
mechanism included rolling the directory into a dirt simple noarch rpm with
almost no data in the specfile? I.e. do the rpmbuild -bs, rpmbuild --rebuild,
and createrepo for the user?
That doesn't really change anything, though. It still fundamentally
means that the image can't be reproducibly created from its config.
> In fact, I'd like to overall entirely deprecate the use of
most of the
> command-line arguments in favor of having them specified in the
> kickstart config. And at the same time, I also want to look at making
> sure that we include the kickstart config on the image that's created so
> that people can more easily see how the image was created, modify it,
> and then create their own. What do other people think of this? The
> things which really "matter" which aren't currently expressed in the
> config are prelink and the uncompressed size of the rootfs. The latter
> is easy (we just add interpretation of part / --size ...). Adding the
> former is probably not terrible to do either.
>> Both may be invoked any number of times. The contents of the directories
>> specified, will be copied to the target livecd. addsdir adds the contents to
>> the rootfs of the target, while addidir adds the contents to the iso9660fs of
>> the target.
> Then when and what of these occurring seems fine. Although I wonder if
> we'd be better off just making it so that you could do %post --nochroot
> and also moving %post to be run later
I just saw a mention on kickstart-list, about using just such a scenario, and
wondered if it was really possible. Of course, as far as reproducability goes,
it is a bit wonky, as %post --nochroot seems to me to be just as much a supreme
breaking of reproducability as the --addsdir thing. I.e. the environment
outside the chroot, is going to be entirely different for every build
(especially traditional anaconda kickstart usage, versus livecd-creator usage).
The difference is that you can at least keep it in mind and be doing,
eg, a wget to grab files. Sure, it doesn't prevent you from doing
something like using a local file, but there's nothing now that stops
you from using a file:// repo.
Also, in my opinion, adding things to the isodir really has /nothing/
to do with
the system being defined in the kickstart, and really should be separate (maybe
even separate tool, 'livecd-repacker'?). I mean, suppose you want to roll your
own mp3/ogg library on your CD. Not the sort of thing that seems appropriate
for a kickstart.
But if I want to include a library of demos or videos about Fedora to
help educate a new user, I do want them there. So yes, there are cases
why reproducibility might not matter. But as a general case, it really
does matter quite a bit