Clint Byrum wrote: > On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 23:39 +0000, Colin Watson wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:34:58PM -0600, Robbie Williamson wrote: >>> So I see the 1st stage as just installing the minimal server, then we >>> boot to a login prompt...user logs in and can either do his/her business >>> as desired or launch the 2nd stage (which they are told about in a 1st >>> boot motd-type message). >> >> The problem is that doing task selection in the second stage, for a CD >> installer, requires keeping copies of a bunch of packages because it's >> quite plausible that the user ejected the CD. The code necessary for >> this was horrific, and I think the problems with it are fundamental. >> >> It's really much better to do the whole installation in one go, IMO. > > We weren't even considering using the CD during the 2nd stage. I happen > to think that trying to use the CD after the installer is done, as > anything other than a source for a local package mirror, is more trouble > than it is worth.
I think the term "2-stage" installer is a bit misleading, since there is no "second stage of the installer" per se. The idea is just to bootstrap a minimal system and let something else (cloud-init / puppet / tasksel / whatever) turn that into a usable system. So this is really about simplifying the one-stage installer and allow the resulting system to plug into configuration management frameworks easily. We are trading the convenience of setting up a LAMP server from the CD, against a simplification of the installer and a more consistent experience, compatible with real-world deployment use cases. I think that's worth it and will participate in defining what "Ubuntu Server" is, be it a cloud image or a netbooted system or an ISO install. -- Thierry Carrez Ubuntu core developer -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel