| 1 |
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 22:42:52 +0100 |
| 3 |
> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Can anaconda give the user a shell at any point of the |
| 5 |
>> installation? Is it possible to manually skip the automated steps? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Last I checked, Anaconda was designed for binary installations, |
| 8 |
> originally for RPM-based systems. Trying to shove source-based |
| 9 |
> compilation into a binary installer seems like a lot of time, |
| 10 |
> trouble, and hacking. Better to start from scratch. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Anaconda doesn't depend against rpm anymore. Distro-specific bits have |
| 13 |
to be implemented through a "backend". You can make your backend do |
| 14 |
whatever you want. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I hope you guys talk to releng about your CLI-based installer, if it |
| 18 |
> gets off the ground. Since we'll need to figure out what's |
| 19 |
> "supported" as an official install method. If you aren't worried |
| 20 |
> about a "canonical" way of doing things with the existing media, then |
| 21 |
> never mind. Either way, good luck. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The only way to avoid epic failures is to keep the whole thing simple, |
| 25 |
without trying to fit everybody. An installer that would cover a |
| 26 |
standard install, newbie-oriented scenario would be definitely good. |
| 27 |
Experienced people won't use it anyway, so why bothering trying to |
| 28 |
cover their needs, it would be a straight way to fail again. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Fabio Erculiani |
| 32 |
http://lxnay.com |
Archives