Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 03:29:08PM -0500, p...@laptop.org wrote:
>
>> daniel wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:08 PM, wrote:
>>>
ssh host keys are probably generated on first boot as well.
with partitioning support, it should be possible
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 03:29:08PM -0500, p...@laptop.org wrote:
>daniel wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:08 PM, wrote:
> > > ssh host keys are probably generated on first boot as well.
> > >
> > > with partitioning support, it should be possible to have a r.o. root
> > > overlaid by a unionf
daniel wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:08 PM, wrote:
> > ssh host keys are probably generated on first boot as well.
> >
> > with partitioning support, it should be possible to have a r.o. root
> > overlaid by a unionfs writeable mount, so machine-specific changes
> > don't modify the re
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:08 PM, wrote:
> ssh host keys are probably generated on first boot as well.
>
> with partitioning support, it should be possible to have a r.o. root
> overlaid by a unionfs writeable mount, so machine-specific changes
> don't modify the released partition. this would ma
morgan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 18:29, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Greg Smith
> > wrote:
...
> >> The biggest challenge I see is to find those things which you do not want
> >> to
> >> "clone" from the source XO. The only things that come to mind are
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:46:09AM -0800, Edward Cherlin wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Michael Stone wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 09:18:51PM +0200, Morgan Collett wrote:
>>>On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 18:29, Daniel Drake wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Greg Smith
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Both have challenges. My preference is clone because I think its easier for
> the end user (create an XO the way you like it then click "clone"). However,
> we need to figure out the list of things that should not be cloned as you
> mention.
It
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 09:18:51PM +0200, Morgan Collett wrote:
>>On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 18:29, Daniel Drake wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
Your suggestion that we allow
addition of RPMs and get th
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 09:18:51PM +0200, Morgan Collett wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 18:29, Daniel Drake wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>>> Your suggestion that we allow
>>> addition of RPMs and get those built into a signed image via "pilgrim or
>>> puritan" is
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 18:29, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> Your suggestion that we allow
>> addition of RPMs and get those built into a signed image via "pilgrim or
>> puritan" is certainly valuable and part of the requirement.
>>
>> However, it doe
Hi Dan,
Those sound like two good steps.
I think we should make a design decision here to either:
1 - "clone" minus a list of configurations
or
2 - Extend customization to include everything relevant for a deployment.
Both have challenges. My preference is clone because I think its easier
for t
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Your suggestion that we allow
> addition of RPMs and get those built into a signed image via "pilgrim or
> puritan" is certainly valuable and part of the requirement.
>
> However, it doesn't cover a few added things (language settings was
> spec
Hi Dan,
Thanks for the comments on the image customization feature:
http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Feature_roadmap/Image_customization
I moved them from the requirements to the specification section because
I think you are proposing a possible solution. Your suggestion that we
allow addition of RPMs
13 matches
Mail list logo
