On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 11:07 -0600, Jeffrey Law wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 15:11 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > > My main comment, though, is that the howto has gone from "here's how to > > use what we have in FC6/RHEL-5" to "here's how to use our latest > > development stuff which may totally change without notice or which we > > may drop altogether". I'd like us to have something which is useful to > > FC6/RHEL-5 users ... and I don't think stacaccli, slcosi, puppet, > > cobbler etc. is what they want to be using. > What would be the point in showing someone how to setup a stateless > system without using those tools? My guess would be that anyone who seriously uses the RHEL5/FC6 stateless stuff would prefer to build and maintain their own simple tools rather than use our volatile in-progress stuff. > > Server configuration: > > > > - I wouldn't refer to stacaccli as a service - maybe just "image > > repository" > What would you call the daemon which synchronizes the client's > on-disk image to the server's image? That sounds like a service to > me. But "image repository" is fine by me. The daemon is on the client. Saying the server offers a "stacaccli service" suggests to me there's a stacaccli daemon on the server. > > - I had a little explanation somewhere was to why > > gnome-python2-gtkhtml2 is needed. I think that's worth keeping; > > it's not obvious at all > Without it you'll get text-mode anaconda when you create OS images. > More than happy to add an explanation of why it's needed. From StatelessLinuxCreateImageWithAnacondaRootpath: "You need gnome-python2-gtkhtml2 installed for a graphical install. Anaconda doesn't Requires: it because you don't need it for a text mode install." > > - "chkconfig tftp on" does what you want ... sed not needed > I don't think so. tftp is not a service that is started by init. > tftp is started by xinetd. But I'll verify. Perhaps chkconfig is > a lot smarter than I thought. It is. > > - I'm not sure I'd always install into a Volume Group. Some users > > might want to store the ext3 images in a Volume Group, but I > > don't think we need to create a Volume Group itself i.e. > > > > Image Name: > > > > [ ] Store images in a folder: > > > > [ /foo/bar ] > > > > [ ] Store images in a Volume Group: > > > > [ StatelessVG ] > Maybe I've missed something. Don't you have to have a volume group > to contain the logical volumes? You need the raw ext3 images in the image repository. You need the image as an LV in a VG when you want to edit it. And you need to image installed as an LV in a VG on the client. But I think the default storage format on the server is raw ext3 image. For whatever reason, some people might find the handiest way to store such an image would be in a volume group but I think we'd still probably edit the image in a *different* VG. Maybe not, that's just my hunch. We need to write that code first :-) Cheers, Mark.