Re: Pure network (medialess) install (PXE + Grub + NFS) support via installer

--=-nrUpPV/9gtg2TOQxWo5Q
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 14:11 +0100, Martin Andersen wrote:
> Recently I tried to install Gentoo using a PXE-enabled Grub image that I =
set up=20
> to boot the kernel provided on the experimental 2005.1 install CD (as wel=
l as=20
> also using the initial cpio ramfs image.)

Well, the normal CD kernel/initramfs/linuxrc is not designed for network
boot in any way, so I can understand why you were unsuccessful.

> Obviously, I quickly experienced that such an install was -- for the mome=
nt at=20
> least -- not exactly hassle-free and straightforward to set up in Gentoo.
> After perusing some of the bootup routines (syslinux, /linuxrc, the squas=
hfs=20
> livecd image et al.), I sort of came to a dead end when trying to get my =
head=20
> around exactly where would be the appropriate place to modify the install=
er=20
> (/boot-process) or even what to do in order to manually tell it to source=
 the=20
> installation files over NFS instead of the local CD/DVD rom.

The plan for Gentoo is to build a completely separate netboot image.
Modifying the current image is nearly impossible at this time.

> Now on to the reason for posting this to the list (and my sincere apologi=
es if=20
> it isn't the right place for it) -- the best way for achieving this would=
=20
> naturally be to provide support for NFS installs at some early part in th=
e boot=20
> procedure; e.g, as a kernel option for instance; or if no CD/DVD media is=
=20
> detected, ask for network-install.

Not going to happen... We want the media to be separate.  If you want
netboot, we will (eventually) have a netboot image.  We don't plan on
making the CD-based kernel/initramfs capable of properly working over a
network.  For one, it bloats the CD-based kernel/initramfs with
unnecessary support.  Second, it bloats the netboot with all of the CD
support.  It also is unusable on certain architectures, such as SPARC,
and we're going for cross-architecture support in everything that we do.

> Any other thoughts on this? Is my request totally inappropriate (as in=20
> currently downprioritized), or do others see the benefits of having such =
a=20
> feature?

Well, it is nowhere near ready.  We currently do not have any netboot
images for most architectures, and the backend GLI support for most
architectures is not there.  My personal goal is to have proper support
for more architectures long before working on netboot images, simply
because the demand is fairly low in comparison to wanting to eventually
get rid of the GRP set.

--=20
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

--=-nrUpPV/9gtg2TOQxWo5Q
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBDzk4KkT4lNIS36YERAjDwAJ9Q2ewnCGuhjeAcCcNLbc5KNrk9bQCeLoF2
LmQlNWwA4gMy4diqYhvu1pE=
=k1Ho
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-nrUpPV/9gtg2TOQxWo5Q--
-- 
[email protected] mailing list