On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 6:47 AM Vendula Poncova <vponcova(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 10:34 AM Jiri Konecny <jkonecny(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dne 24. 01. 22 v 20:20 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 1:46 PM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Am 24.01.2022 um 18:42 schrieb Chris Murphy
<lists(a)colorremedies.com>:
> >>>
> >>> cc: anaconda-devel@
> >>>
> >>> From today's Fedora QA minutes
> >>>
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-01-24/fedora-qa.202...
> >>>
> >>> 16:20:54 <pboy> I'll test that again, but I'm sure, if you
use
> >>> everything DVD you get the wrong preconfiguration. We had a thread
> >>> about that on server list.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not finding this thread. But Adamw surely knows the history of
> >>> Everything ISO better than I do. My fuzzy memory is that it's sort
of
> >>> a side effect of how images are made and it's kept around as a
catch
> >>> all. It's the only way to do a netinstall for any of the desktops.
The
> >>> default package set is for a minimal install, a.k.a. Fedora Custom.
> >>> The idea is to make it straightforward to get a minimum bootable
> >>> system and then use dnf to build it up from there.
> >>>
> >>> Just for context, "Everything ISO" e.g.
> >>>
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/compose/rawhide/Fedora-Rawhide-2022012...
> >>>
> >>> This image defines "automatic" partitioning as btrfs. It's
intrinsic
> >>> to the image itself what the partitioning defaults to. It's not a
> >>> function of the package set, i.e. choosing the Server package set
> >>> doesn't get you Server's default partitioning. It's a
little
> >>> confusing, but it's working as designed, insofar as it has one.
> >>>
> >>> I cc'd Anaconda folks, because I'm not sure exactly where the
> >>> "autopart" kickstart command gets defined these days. And also
whether
> >>> it's worth the effort to make autopart variable based on what
edition
> >>> or spin is selected in the Everything netinstaller? I'm not sure
that
> >>> it is.
> >> Chris,
> >>
> >> if I remember correctly, wasn’t it you who informed me (about a year ago in
the context of F32/33) that booting from everything DVD and select „Fedora Server“ does
not result in an identical installation as booting from Server DVD and selecting „Fedora
Server“? (when I wondered about the installation on a rented remote hardware where only
„Everything“ was available).
> >>
> > That's a different case. That's referring to the package collection.
> > The Everything ISO has the base Fedora "profile" that most variants
> > use (which uses Btrfs). But it also doesn't select Fedora Server by
> > default and is explicitly designed "for experts", The Fedora Server
> > netinstall ISO uses the Fedora Server "profile" and will use the
> > Fedora Server settings by default, including using LVM+XFS.
> >
> > Think of the Everything ISO as something that an Arch convert would
> > use, while the Fedora Server netinstall ISO would be something that a
> > sysadmin doing server deployments from a central repo mirror would
> > use.
> >
> Hi,
>
> Yes, it's as Neal said. Basically Anaconda is now using configuration
> profiles which are matching the /etc/os-release values.
>
>
https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/blob/master/data/profile.d/fedora...
>
> If there is a match we will choose that configuration file. Not sure
> what the Everything ISO has there. However, it's possible that it is
> matching the base Fedora configuration file:
>
>
https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/blob/master/data/profile.d/fedora...
> where you can find the default_scheme:
>
https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda/blob/master/data/profile.d/fedora...
>
Btw. the issue with changing profiles based on the packages selection was already
discussed here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2002668
I still think that the best approach would be to extend the boot menu of the Everything
ISO as mentioned at:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2002668#c1
The Anaconda profiles are documented here:
https://anaconda-installer.readthedocs.io/en/latest/configuration-files.h...
Would it be possible to add the ability to define partitioning schemes
per scheme? For example, with Btrfs on Fedora Server, having a
subvolume for /home is sensible, but with the other arrangements that
divide up space, probably not. For RPM-OSTree systems
(Kinoite/Silverblue), we'd like to have a /var subvolume in addition
to /home, but not when plain partitions or LVM is used.
--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!