On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 11:45:22PM -0600, Evan Layton wrote: > Evan Layton wrote: > > > Shawn Walker wrote: > > > > > Yes, the user requested an install, but there is possibly significant > > > risk involved due to the mismatch. Do we really want an automated > > > possibly broken install? > > I should also mention that it is not expected that this will be a common > occurrence but is sothing that would be mostly caused by a mis-configured > install manifest.
In which case the user is even less likely to get what they want. At least if the user deliberately tries to install a mismatched image, they might be expected to know that it would fail (and possibly even know the cases when it wouldn't). And a naive user might not think there would be any problems with mismatched images, and so might forge ahead. But you're trying to support an invalid user configuration? How is that not simply broken? Danek
