Danek Duvall wrote: > 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?
It's not really invalid to have the manifest point at the /dev repo is it? That's one instance where we could hit this and where it has bitten us in the past. We want to print out the errors/warnings in this case but we don't necessarily want to fail the install. -evan
