[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Glynn, > > I have a couple of questions on the specific requirements below. On > general question is are the requirements within a section (such as > "Installation") ordered by priority?
Some of the requirements probably need some thought about the order - especially those requirements that go hand in hand with having a useful system ie. you can't really have one without the other. In the case of Installation, I believe the current ordering to be ok. > Also, is there a general prioritization here or could priorities be > assigned to the individual items as you see them? For example, are > there a set of items that are "must haves" for a meaningful, first > Indiana distribution? I believe having a set of requirements that provides a good step on the ladder without shooting ourselves in the foot on subsequent releases is obviously preferred. However, I'm just as open to suggestions for how to prioritize. As I've mentioned before, I'd be happy for a first release if we only had an install and package management infrastructure that was developed to the stage where it would be possible to extend later on. I would personally rate those 2 sections higher than some of the others because in essence, they are enablers for future work. >> 3.1) Installation >> >> INS-1: Provide infrastructure to install Indiana from >> a single CD. The default install should be a >> graphical experience, with a text console install >> if preferred. The core install will be a basic >> operating system and desktop environment. > > There appear to be two distinct requirements being called out here. > The first, let's called it INS-1a, is around an installer that's build > around a CD rather than a DVD. The second, let's called it INS-1b, > concerns the default set of components/functionality delivered with the > CD. Is that correct? Sounds reasonable. > Concerning INS-1b, what are the specific features that the installed OS > should provide? I realize the common thing to do will be to use > something that satisfies PKG-2 to download other components but is > there an expectation around this initial installation? Some examples > here include: which (productivity) tools? which languages? which > hardware drivers besides the obvious ones concerning the disk and > network? I had hoped to work on an initial list of packages that would be available on a default install. I haven't unfortunately got to that work, but if we could assume that it includes everything from a core install, desktop environment and associated dependencies. I would personally be basing that work heavily from http://www.gnome.org/~gman/ubuntu-pkg-list.txt Aside from a few things (which presumably are part of the current package dependency list), it's a pretty good start. [As an aside, I was absolutely *shocked* when I put my Ubuntu CD into a running Windows environment to see they had additional space to add open source components that could be installed and run on Windows too. I'm seriously impressed with their ability to cram all that on a single CD] >> INS-3: Any installation should be aware of existing >> installed operating systems, prompt the user >> for an appropriate action and intuitive >> steps to carry out that action, particularly >> with respect to re-partitioning if >> necessary. > > Some additional clarification of this requirement would be helpful. > How integrated should this repartitioning tool be with the installer > itself? Which existing operating systems should the installer be aware > of? Which partition types need to be supported on x86/x64 systems for > installation (and subsequent boot?) No, I don't believe it's necessary to have a repartitioning tool with the installer. The installer should be nominally aware of Windows and Linux at the very least. I honestly don't know what the answer to the last question is - probably nothing more than what is currently supported in Solaris. >> INS-4: A LiveCD should be available for a 'try first, >> install later' experience. The LiveCD functionality >> should be integrated into the core install CD. > > Given how little a CD can hold, how important is that the "live" media > actually be a CD versus something like a DVD? If the requirement is > really around a CD, again what are the attributes/features that the > live environment should contain? Which tools, languages, drivers, > etc? I believe crucial as a long term goal is to see the LiveCD be part of the install CD. However, that shouldn't stop anyone being able to construct a LiveDVD themselves with additional software available. The LiveCD does not need to contain any additional software that the install CD doesn't already have in my opinion. >> 3.4) Laptop Support >> >> LAP-1: Provide a utility to generate feedback for system >> configurations that are being installed, and build >> a basic public hardware compatibility list. Provide >> drivers for the most popular configurations. > > There also seem to be two distinct requirements specified here. The > first, let's called it LAP-1a, seem to express a requirement for a tool > which generates a system report and makes it available to be used to > build a HCL. Or is it to have a tool like the Sun Device Detection > Tool run before or during installation to identify whether the target > machine is suitable for a Indiana installation? I believe the former. While the current Sun Device Detection tool is very useful in informing users about whether it is likely that there will be drivers to support their system, I believe the former is useful for collecting basic information about what our users are running on, and as such developing a set of priorities for hardware types that we may want to write support for in the future. > The other requirement, let's called it LAP-1b, seems to call out the > need for more drivers. If that's the case, then there needs to be much > more specific requirements around which devices are important. This should be considered a long term goal. Perhaps the requirement is to gather the list of 'known' currently available drivers that are suitable to ship with the distribution. Does this narrow things down, or do I need to do some investigation? >> LAP-3: The system should automatically connect to an available >> network, whether through a network cable or wireless >> connection. > > Given that Network Auto-Magic Phase 0 is already part of OpenSolaris, > what specific enhancements are meant by this requirement? Possibly none. Given that we have this infrastructure, and roadmap, I think including it 'as is' is fine. >> LAP-4: Any system connected up to an external video projector >> should work without needing added configuration. > > "Any" covers a awfully lot of systems. :-) Is there a list of the more > important ones given that we're talking about video drivers here? This is similar to LAP-1b. I think we need to do what we can in the short term until we start generating better metrics for what systems our users are installing on. Sorry for it being so vague. Glynn _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
