On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 02:16:56PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Agreed. But it is the same problem as "what if there's an exploit in a
> library Anaconda uses to download repos during install?". There would
> still be a lot of media out there and I'm not sure we've ever respun the
> main images post
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 14:05 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 04:02:21PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > > Hm. I can see the use of this, but I can also see issues with how you
> > > do updates for it sanely (if at all.)
> > Yea. I think you don't do updates for it in general. I
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 04:02:21PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > Hm. I can see the use of this, but I can also see issues with how you
> > do updates for it sanely (if at all.)
> Yea. I think you don't do updates for it in general. I think I agree
> with Seth that this is something Anaconda stuffs
On 06/03/2010 11:49 AM, Chris Lumens wrote:
>> Rescue environment aside, it'd be nice to avoid failing the upgrade
>> because of insufficient space in /boot. I think 200 MB default /boot
>> prove to be too small---perhaps 500 MB should be the new default?
>
> Of course, it already is:
>
> http://gi
> Rescue environment aside, it'd be nice to avoid failing the upgrade
> because of insufficient space in /boot. I think 200 MB default /boot
> prove to be too small---perhaps 500 MB should be the new default?
Of course, it already is:
http://git.fedoraproject.org/git/?p=anaconda.git;a=commit;h=
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 04:04:18PM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Is it better to have a separate volume for this, or to just have a sort
> > of rescue initramfs ...?
> >
> > Seems like the latter is more flexible but then I'm no boot process wizard.
>
> Good suggestio
On 06/02/10 22:33, Jon Masters wrote:
> A recovery initramfs could be used. It could just basically be the
> rescue mode anaconda bits in one image shoved in place to start.
That would be a good idea anyway: Zap the two-stage rescue system
loading. Just have a kernel + initramfs. That would ma
On 06/03/2010 01:32 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> Yea. I think you don't do updates for it in general. I think I agree
> with Seth that this is something Anaconda stuffs in place when it
> installs grub.
>
I think a RFE has been filed against Anaconda before but please file one
if not.
Rahul
--
d
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 23:51 +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
> Ok, a mini-Fedora that lives entirely in a subdir of the boot partition,
> containing an application for managing grub.conf and other things.
> Things it should be able to do:
>
> * Manage those yum-integrated btrfs snapshots.
>
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 16:55 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 16:47 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> > On 06/02/2010 04:02 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> >
> > > That said, of course eventually you could have two of these images and
> > > allow for them to be upgraded, etc. etc. To star
Ok, a mini-Fedora that lives entirely in a subdir of the boot partition,
containing an application for managing grub.conf and other things.
Things it should be able to do:
* Manage those yum-integrated btrfs snapshots.
* Download Fedora and other distro pxeboot and live images and
On 02/06/10 21:55, Jon Masters wrote:
--snip--
>> Rescue environment aside, it'd be nice to avoid failing the upgrade
>> because of insufficient space in /boot. I think 200 MB default /boot
>> prove to be too small---perhaps 500 MB should be the new default?
>
> It does seem to be the default in
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 16:04 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Is it better to have a separate volume for this, or to just have a sort
> > of rescue initramfs ...?
> >
> > Seems like the latter is more flexible but then I'm no boot process wizard.
>
> Good suggestion.
>
>
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Is it better to have a separate volume for this, or to just have a sort
> of rescue initramfs ...?
>
> Seems like the latter is more flexible but then I'm no boot process wizard.
Good suggestion.
Another one: What about LVM snapshots? and/or btrfs snapshots?
Either way woul
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 16:47 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 06/02/2010 04:02 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> > That said, of course eventually you could have two of these images and
> > allow for them to be upgraded, etc. etc. To start with though, I think
> > there's a lot of value in pre-committ
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:39 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> The ability to create/update a rescue image would be very useful IMHO.
If it was a ramfs that was writable, and you had say yum/rpm in there,
you could update the running code and make use of a newer e2fsck...
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- F
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:39 -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 21:22 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 03:13:21PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >
> >>> Is it better to have a separate volume for this, or to just have a sort
> >>> of
On 06/02/2010 04:02 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> That said, of course eventually you could have two of these images and
> allow for them to be upgraded, etc. etc. To start with though, I think
> there's a lot of value in pre-committing a couple hundred MB of disk
> space to having a rescue environment
Jon Masters wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 21:22 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 03:13:21PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
>>> Is it better to have a separate volume for this, or to just have a sort
>>> of rescue initramfs ...?
>> Or if you are able to run a little bit of
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 21:22 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 03:13:21PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Is it better to have a separate volume for this, or to just have a sort
> > of rescue initramfs ...?
>
> Or if you are able to run a little bit of C code[1] and can rea
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 03:13:21PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 13:03 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Hm. I can see the use of this, but I can also see issues with how you
> do updates for it sanely (if at all.)
W
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 03:13:21PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 13:03 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> >>> Hm. I can see the use of this, but I can also see issues with how you
> >>> do updates for it sanely (if at all.)
> >> Why would you do updates for i
Jon Masters wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 13:03 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
>>> Hm. I can see the use of this, but I can also see issues with how you
>>> do updates for it sanely (if at all.)
>> Why would you do updates for it? Your install CD/DVD to use for rescue
>> boot doesn't get updated.
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 13:03 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Hm. I can see the use of this, but I can also see issues with how you
> > do updates for it sanely (if at all.)
>
> Why would you do updates for it? Your install CD/DVD to use for rescue
> boot doesn't get updated. I'd think you'd just
> Hm. I can see the use of this, but I can also see issues with how you
> do updates for it sanely (if at all.)
Why would you do updates for it? Your install CD/DVD to use for rescue
boot doesn't get updated. I'd think you'd just install a pristine newer
one verbatim if you had a reason to bothe
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:54 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) said:
> > There are various projects implementing LiveCD, rescue, or snapshotted
> > updates. I would like to propose a feature in which some of the
> > rescue/LiveCD bits are (optionally) installed t
Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) said:
> There are various projects implementing LiveCD, rescue, or snapshotted
> updates. I would like to propose a feature in which some of the
> rescue/LiveCD bits are (optionally) installed to a spare volume during
> install such that there's always a rescu
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 15:04 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> Folks,
>
> There are various projects implementing LiveCD, rescue, or snapshotted
> updates. I would like to propose a feature in which some of the
> rescue/LiveCD bits are (optionally) installed to a spare volume during
> install such that t
Folks,
There are various projects implementing LiveCD, rescue, or snapshotted
updates. I would like to propose a feature in which some of the
rescue/LiveCD bits are (optionally) installed to a spare volume during
install such that there's always a rescue/Live boot option that can boot
up to a reco
29 matches
Mail list logo
