Glenn Lagasse wrote: > * Joseph J VLcek (Joseph.Vlcek at Sun.COM) wrote: > >>> Right, we'd have to do something like that (guess). If we knew what the >>> installed size was going to be for a given set of packages then we could >>> do better, but I'm not aware of any such mechanism. As for networking, >>> verifying that the settings will actually 'work' is another hard problem >>> that I don't think we can really verify (other than making sure that >>> 'something' is configured for networking). >>> >>> >> Does this support the value of a prototype? >> > > I'm not sure what you mean by this. > >
I simply meant by building a prototype may give us some experience to know what the likely VM configuration should be but of course that would be limited to what we are doing and not what others will do. >> The more experience we have the more we will know what a valid VM >> configuration will look like. >> > > Yes and no. A valid VM configuration (as required by this project) is > dependant on many factors, not all of which are exposed by just doing > installs inside a VM. > > >> I think we will need to make sure if an error is encountered because of >> a poorly configured VM that our error reporting indicates as much as >> possible exactly what failed and why. >> > > Where possible, I agree. Unfortunately there isn't going to be a lot of > feedback we can get from the booted VM. It's either going to 'shutdown' > when it's finished (successfully or perhaps not) or it isn't and we'll > have to declare the install failed after some timeout. There really > isn't any feedback mechanism to 'hook into' the installation process > inside the VM. > This is not good. Perhaps more investigation is needed. But shutdown on success and no feedback otherwise is not good. > Cheers, > >
