Karen Tung wrote: > Hi Alok, > > Please see my responses inline. > > Alok Aggarwal wrote: >> Hi Karen, >> >> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Karen Tung wrote: >> >>> Alok Aggarwal wrote: >>>> Currently the Caiman architecture supports two types >>>> of installers - a LiveCD based GUI and AI. Each of these >>>> installation environments are different in that >>>> one is a desktop based environment while the other is >>>> not. As a result, they are both built on a different >>>> set of packages with AI being built on a significantly >>>> smaller set. >>>> >>>> As we provide more installation environments in the future >>>> (text based interactive install, a media based AI and possibly a >>>> network based text install), I think there are a couple of high >>>> order issues that need to be sorted out. >>> >>> Another high order issue that you didn't >>> list is the user experience. >>> >>> - Do we include different installers in the same media? Or do we >>> have a media for each installer type? Or only include a few >>> installers on the same media? >> >> I didn't call it out specifically but that's >> what I was thinking. See one of the follow on >> mails. > OK, I will read those other emails and respond there. > >> >>>> a) What kind of an image should these new installers >>>> (text, media based AI) be based on? Since both these >>>> installers are not going to offer a desktop installation >>>> environment, does it make sense to base them on the >>>> same set of packages as AI? I think it would be a >>>> reasonable starting point. >>> For installers that does not require the desktop, the >>> set of packages used for building the AI image >>> sounds like a reasonable starting point. >> >> I agree except for a media based text installer which >> does not support installting from IPS, I think we need >> the LiveCD set of packages. Not to bring up the desktop >> but to provide a reasonable installed system. > That's actually an interesting point for discussion. > > At this time, the GUI installer installs every single thing that's on > the CD. > So, that's simple. But for the text installer that does not > support installing from IPS, does it make sense? > Do we want to provide a choice? If people are using > the text installer because their machine's graphics card is > not supported, then, they might not want to install the LiveCD > set of packages, since they will never be able to use it. > On the other hand, if people are using the > text installer because they don't want to bother to run the > GUI at that time, then, they might want the LiveCD set of packages.
Or because they can't run the GUI at the time because they're doing an ssh-based installation for a server that they want to be able to vnc into or administrate graphically, locally. -- Shawn Walker
