On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 09:51 -0500, Harrison, Jonathan wrote: > I also feel there needs to be a server profile. This is coming from > someone who personally uses Gentoo, and there is nothing better than > installing a system and being able to count on both hands and feet the > number of packages that were installed. I keep reading on this list > that everyone uses kickstart, but I am yet to see an actual kickstart > file that people are using. Is there a decent whitepaper, blogpost, or > something that just delivers a basic server profile? Thanks for the > info. > > Jonathan >
The kickstart files we use are generated by a python script. We just hook directly into pykickstart so that we can dynamically generate kickstart files in a way that allows us to develop our own server profiles. > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:34 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > >> In general I'm usually taking about standalones, but VMs are a great > >> example of where this is useful. Unfortunately VMs tend to be a good > place > >> for using kickstarts. Actually I take that back. Since with a > Virtual I > >> can install and copy, not having to do a kickstart is very useful > there as > >> well. Thats what I don't understand. Why is there a perception that > >> having a clean and small base server install from the leading > Enterprise > >> Linux vendor without a custom installation process via kickstart is > such a > >> bad concept? > >> > > > > I think it has to do with percentages. 60% of all system admins do not > > want to sit through a long graphical install just to have to sit > > through it again because they biffed a screen somewhere. Having to sit > > in a server room and do a click through at 2am in the morning when I > > can just have the box pxe boot or use EdBrown's kickstart collection > > means more time that I have to fix other problems and less likely I > > will say that this system is 1.2 gigs in / when I mean 12gb. So it > > becomes what fits the use case for most people. The ones who want to > > do a graphical install are usually going to be adding stuff that isnt > > in a default or trying to figure out what size / should be. > > That describes some customers but there are a whole lot of customers > left out. The bottom line is that the default packages for a basic > server are considered to be lame by many people as this discussion > demonstrates. I can't say it hasn't always been that way and I've made > my unhappiness with it known for years ... so at some point we try > again, then we give up again and wait for another opening. Why in the > world there is a default that *everyone* is expected to change using > kickstart is just beyond my ability to comprehend. > > Even using kickstart my preference would be for the typical end user > to not have to wade through hundreds or thousands of packages. An > empty %packages section should give a sane default. > > > I know that on the CentOS side, its another chain that has to be qa'd > > and tested every time there is a new spin or update... and they only > > do a cursory run through. The RHEL side has a long set of tests for > > every platform. So every combination adds more tests. Anything outside > > of what is a solution for 60% gets cut out to lower costs and make > > more time for other items that aren't being tested as well as > > customers want. > > Well, this is another whole can of worms. When up2date and yum arrive > broken in a new point release I'm not very likely to accept QA costs > as a justification for anything. > > John > > _______________________________________________ > rhelv5-list mailing list > rhelv5-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list ---Brett. My theology, briefly, is that the universe was dictated but not signed. -- Christopher Morley _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list rhelv5-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
