The present installer could do this, the main advantages in doing it in an installed environment are: 1) most likely performing more steps in Live mode would push further memory consumption, I noticed that Anaconda has quite some memory demands and on "not-so older" computers it is easy to trigger an OOM-Killer, especially with most popular DEs, so in my opinion using the Live mode as less as possible, maybe with less services (that will be enabled later in the installed system), would be a nice improvement.
2) the present installer does work, but in my opinion it is conceptually better, from a programmer's perspective, doing certain steps in a post-install fashion, taking into account the actual installed system, rather than Live Session->Installed System. 3) if Anaconda gets extended to handle custom installation steps, it would be simpler to think about them as inside the system rather than from Live session to Installed system. 4) even if the installation speed is acceptable as it is, I guess that performing as many steps as possible from the installed system would be faster. You would get the actual PC performance rather than Live session performance. 5) I think that it would make Anaconda much more flexible having the option to choose between performing an installation step from Live mode or from Installed mode. Of course Anaconda works as it is, this is just (in my opinion) an improvement, I think that it could enable more flexibility to Sabayon Spins and to the installer itself. I am bringing to ML just to know if it is worth it or if it is not. Il giorno mar, 11/10/2011 alle 00.02 -0500, wolfden ha scritto: > > What are we gaining by doing it this way? The process you talk about > are working fine with the present installer, no? I can do an install > with current setup in like 15-20 minutes. Seems like a reinvention of > what we already have working, but I could be missing something here, > tis why I ask. -- Lorenzo Cogotti
