On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:58:41PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote: > From my experience, what I believe the automated installs in d-i to do (not > having seen it done or tested it yet), it's not going to scratch the surface > of the functionality that FAI does, and FAI pisses all over KickStart for > flexibility (with the appropriate increase in learning curve and > complexity).
Well, could you please elaborate a bit on what FAI could do that d-i will not be able to do? (Ie. some sort of "requested feature list". :-) ) Also, will FAI work for sid at all? (I can only find references to woody in the documentation.) > I think d-i automated installs and FAI will both have their place, going > forward, for different reasons. d-i may be good for a bare-metal recovery of > an existing installation, whereas FAI is probably going to be better at > deploying new installations on inconsistent hardware (I use it to run up > infrastructure servers, on random hardware). Hm? Why shouldn't d-i be able to handle inconsistent hardware? I mean, we have discover and autopartkit; what else should touch hardware too much? /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]