Keith Mitchell wrote: > > > Alok Aggarwal wrote: >> >> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Karen Tung wrote: >> >>>>> There's an assumption here that a "bootable AI iso" >>>>> will be a separate entity from the current AI iso. >>>>> Is there any reason that the current AI iso can't >>>>> be made bootable with the end result being that we >>>>> have a single AI image? >>> The bootable AI image could be the same as the "regular" AI image, it >>> all depends on >>> how we code it. Right now, the GRUB menu for an AI image is >>> re-created during >>> installadm time anyway. The one from the image is not used. >>> So, it is not hard to make the grub menu >>> entries that will help VMC to boot right, and still use the same >>> image for both >>> bootable AI and "regular" AI. >> >> Okay, that sounds reasonable. >> >>>> Yes. The assumption for a bootable AI was that it would install a >>>> liveCD set of packages (as the VMC project needed a self-contained >>>> AI, that didn't access IPS). So the bootable AI would be, in my >>>> assumption, based off the liveCD (in terms of installed packages). >>> I don't think that's a valid assumption. The VMC project will be >>> using the bootable AI image >>> to install whatever it is specified in the AI manifest from IPS. >> >> I agree, although I think the VMC func spec needs to call >> that out more clearly. >> >> Currently sections 1.4.1 and 1.5 of the spec seem to imply >> that an IPS based installation is the mode of operation >> from within the bootable AI image. But section 5.1 seems >> contradict that and says it could be cpio or IPS based. >> >> Alok > From a Virtual Machine standpoint, I think the cpio-based version would > be preferred. The references to IPS are because the existing networked > AI installs via IPS, and we were basing some assumptions off of that. > But, installing from a remote repository requires extra set-up to make > sure the VM can contact the repo. Granted, that set-up should be > straightforward. However, I thought that a reason for having a > media-based AI was so that one could do an automated installation onto > systems that don't necessarily have network access - in which case cpio > would make more sense, yes?
I believe the reason was purely to avoid the overhead of setting up and AI service here, not to avoid using IPS repositories. Dave
