Hi Evan - You've clearly identified a current state, but it's not clear to me....is the problem statement that the image and bits don't match or that the installation fails in unexpected ways and should be handled more gracefully? Let me ask another way.....what is the desired state that you are moving toward in solving the problem? Is it to ensure that the boot image and OS bits are compatible or is it to deal with the failures in this situation appropriately?
thanks, ginnie On 05/19/09 18:28, Evan Layton wrote: > Problem Statement: > > * Currently installing a client where the booted image doesn't > match the OS bits being installed, the installation will fail > in unexpected and undefined ways. > * Further the user is given no information on why we failed > and the failure is not handled or logged gracefully. > * Additionally both the user and the installer application > have no insight into where or why we failed. > > I would like to get any input from Ethan, Karen, Jack, Frank and > anyone else interested on the problem statement by 5pm PST on > Wednesday. > > I've also added a wiki page for this information and added meeting > notes as well as other information. > http://opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/CVERS/ > > Thanks! > -evan > > > More notes... > > The areas of possible incompatibilities: > 1) Architecture, SPARC or X86/64 (for image or archive based install). > 2) OS version the client is booted to > 3) installer version > 4) The type of install image we are using. For example Package > based, archive(cpio, etc) based or image (replicated or recovery > image) based. > 5) OS version being installed > 6) manifest and schema versioning to make sure they match. (This is > part of Jack's XML parsing work) > > > _______________________________________________ > caiman-discuss mailing list > caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss -- Ginnie
