On Mon, 2013-10-14 at 13:51 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 22:26 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 05:18 -0400, Martin Sivak wrote:
> > > > One thing that doesn't seem to have been covered in the discussion —
> > > > what about third-party firstboot modu
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 22:26 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 05:18 -0400, Martin Sivak wrote:
> > > One thing that doesn't seem to have been covered in the discussion —
> > > what about third-party firstboot modules?
> > >
> > > For an install on a corporate machine we have a
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 22:26 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> Thanks. Delayed response... I've finally got everything else working
> nicely on Fedora 19 and I'm looking at this. I see firstboot is still
> available, but it doesn't seem to *work*.
>
> First it wants python-ethtool to be installed
On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 05:18 -0400, Martin Sivak wrote:
> > One thing that doesn't seem to have been covered in the discussion —
> > what about third-party firstboot modules?
> >
> > For an install on a corporate machine we have a firstboot module which
> > asks for the Active Directory credentials
On 22.05.2013 03:32, Simo Sorce wrote:
> Also I think realmd has no way to set pure LDAP accounts (RHDS,
> OpenLDAP, ...).
Right, it doesn't yet have that ability. But realmd can gain the ability
to configure other sources than the Active Directory and FreeIPA
providers it currently supports.
Tha
On May 21, 2013 11:50 AM, "Adam Williamson" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 14:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > So I'm writing a blog post on this topic ATM, and that really kinda
> > brought home how messy this design is at present.
>
> So! I've been poking through the logic of this for the
Hi Adam,
Firstboot stays available in RHEL for this reason (legacy plugins). Fedora
modules will probably have to be updated. At least that was the plan. It is
very easy to write a new module with the new API. Ping vpodzime, he has a
development guide.
--
Martin Sivák
msi...@redhat.com
Red Hat
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 14:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So I'm writing a blog post on this topic ATM, and that really kinda
> brought home how messy this design is at present.
One thing that doesn't seem to have been covered in the discussion —
what about third-party firstboot modules?
For an
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 19:14 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 17:22 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > If someone wants to make user creation mandatory I think they should
> > first provide a working method to select external account providers in
> > anaconda. If that can't be done
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 19:14 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 17:22 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > If someone wants to make user creation mandatory I think they should
> > first provide a working method to select external account providers in
> > anaconda. If that can't be done
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 17:22 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> If someone wants to make user creation mandatory I think they should
> first provide a working method to select external account providers in
> anaconda. If that can't be done they should leave account creation
> optional. Although it being a
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 17:22 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > Both g-i-s and anaconda/i-s appear to offer at least some mechanism for
> > configuring remote user accounts. I don't know in detail what
> > technologies they support; the g-i-s one looks like it supports at least
> > AD, I don't know what
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 17:22 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > Nothing much, and if you actually read both my mails fully, that is
> > precisely the path I proposed.
>
> Yeah I got that, I was just asking why we consider mandating something
> when the current behavior seem, to work just fine.
Well, I'
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 14:09 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 16:56 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > > The other 'mandate user creation' option would be simply to do it in
> > > (interactive) anaconda, and tell people who want to do installs without
> > > a user account to use a
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 16:56 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > The other 'mandate user creation' option would be simply to do it in
> > (interactive) anaconda, and tell people who want to do installs without
> > a user account to use a kickstart or lump it. This has the advantage of
> > being one of the
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 12:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 15:03 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> > > gnome-initial-setup would still be a different case, as GNOME apparently
> > > really wants to force the creation of a non-root account. So g-i-s will
> >
> > That seems fi
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 15:03 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > gnome-initial-setup would still be a different case, as GNOME apparently
> > really wants to force the creation of a non-root account. So g-i-s will
>
> That seems fine to me; systems where you don't want a user account shouldn't
> be d
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 15:03 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:50:37AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Since F19 has user creation in anaconda, we can actually cover all those
> > scenarios in anaconda quite easily. Literally all we have to do is make
> > it pop up a warnin
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 11:50:37AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Since F19 has user creation in anaconda, we can actually cover all those
> scenarios in anaconda quite easily. Literally all we have to do is make
> it pop up a warning if you try to quit the installer without creating a
> user acco
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 14:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So I'm writing a blog post on this topic ATM, and that really kinda
> brought home how messy this design is at present.
So! I've been poking through the logic of this for the last few days,
still, and with some further testing of exactly
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 09:41 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 05:07 -0400, Martin Sivak wrote:
>
> > It was actually intended to behave this way from the beginning. All
> > the screens are shared with Anaconda (and all we have right now live
> > as part of Anaconda source code)
On Tue, 2013-05-21 at 05:23 -0400, Martin Sivak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just to clarify things.
>
> Anaconda currently requires root password OR user with administrator
> privileges (wheel group). So if you set root password in Anaconda,
> initial-setup will start, but can be dismissed immediately.
I m
Hi,
Just to clarify things.
Anaconda currently requires root password OR user with administrator privileges
(wheel group). So if you set root password in Anaconda, initial-setup will
start, but can be dismissed immediately.
It might be good idea to add some explanation text to initial-setup to
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 13:46 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 14:51 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 14:44 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 14:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >
> > > > but still, it seems to be worth consider
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 09:41 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Great. It's probably a bit late for Beta, but it would be awesome if we
> could get it to behave as intended for final: hide unnecessary functions
> and don't run unless needed (so in practice it'd only ever run to show
> the user creatio
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 14:51 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 14:44 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 14:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > but still, it seems to be worth considering. Alternatively, we could
> > > make i-s behave a lot more like g
On Mon, 2013-05-20 at 05:07 -0400, Martin Sivak wrote:
> It was actually intended to behave this way from the beginning. All
> the screens are shared with Anaconda (and all we have right now live
> as part of Anaconda source code).
>
> The hide/skip functionality is missing, but there is a proof
> From: Adam Williamson
> As I mentioned in my initial post, the Law of Xkcd informs us that if we
> change this so that user creation is mandatory, it will *inevitably*
> piss someone off.
Me for example, although I'd be more annoyed than pissed. ;-)
Both at home and work I have all user accou
Hi,
a quick note before I start: I am no longer maintainer of initial-setup. But
since I started it I will answer some of the questions.
> the main reason why we still have i-s while it's possible to do these
> setup tasks in Anaconda itself are OEM installations. And I'm pretty
> sure we don't
- Original Message -
> On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 14:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > but still, it seems to be worth considering. Alternatively, we could
> > make i-s behave a lot more like g-i-s: it could dump its 'root password'
> > and 'date/time' spokes, and only run at all, and only
On Sunday 19 May 2013 15:22:12 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:15:54AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > ... so on a minimal install you only had to set a root password and
> > you wound up with a system with just the root user.
> I know, and it was a pain to remember the rig
Speaking of initial user setup...it bugs me that I'm forced to create a group.
If I try to pick an existing group, the Fedora installer complains that the
group already exists, which is a strange error to report -- no duh it already
exists. (I just want my user account to be part of the "users
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 10:15:54AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-05-18 at 09:30 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 02:44:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Thinking about it more, this really seems to be the way to go. Forcing
> > > user creation in an
On Sat, 2013-05-18 at 09:30 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 02:44:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Thinking about it more, this really seems to be the way to go. Forcing
> > user creation in anaconda is a problem for someone who wants to do a
> > minimal install wit
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 02:44:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Thinking about it more, this really seems to be the way to go. Forcing
> user creation in anaconda is a problem for someone who wants to do a
> minimal install with no user account. Doing the above would reduce the
> paths to someth
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 14:44 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 14:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > but still, it seems to be worth considering. Alternatively, we could
> > make i-s behave a lot more like g-i-s: it could dump its 'root password'
> > and 'date/time' spokes,
On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 14:25 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> but still, it seems to be worth considering. Alternatively, we could
> make i-s behave a lot more like g-i-s: it could dump its 'root password'
> and 'date/time' spokes, and only run at all, and only to allow user
> creation, if you didn'
So I'm writing a blog post on this topic ATM, and that really kinda
brought home how messy this design is at present.
Quick refresher for anyone who hasn't looked at it much yet: in F19,
anaconda can create user accounts, and 'firstboot' has been replaced
with two alternative tools, 'initial-setup
38 matches
Mail list logo
