On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@archlinux.de> wrote:
it being discussed o IRC for some time now but I guess it's a good idea to sum our current progress up. I'll also add a few suggestions about how we might improve our iso releases.
I created a testing iso which can be found at: http://pkgbuild.com/~pierre/ Besides the patches I had sent to the releng list it includes pacman-key from Allans working repo and Dave's arch-install-scripts. In addition to an updated set of packages another noticeable change is that signature verification is now supported and works out of the box. The keyring is initialized on boot and so you can install new packages within the live system as well.
Nice stuff. I have been testing Dave's arch-install-scripts and used it for my latest install. Very convenient stuff, so having this on an install medium would be great.
Overall I would suggest this: * Decouple aif, install-scripts, archiso and actuall iso releases. This means have tags for those and provide packages in our repos.
+1. I agree that this would speed up development, and hopefully also lower the bar for contributing.
* It's not a bad thing to start off with an iso that does not include aif a first. This should actually speed up development and hopefully get us more help from the community.
+1. Creating iso's with aif before it is ready will not do much good. Provided that it is easy to "roll your own iso" it should still be easy for people to test out the aif and contribute to it.
* archiso should be changed in a way that would allow anyone to easily create official isos with one command. It should result in the same iso no matter how the host is configured.
This sounds very useful.
* We should treat the iso more like our other package and not aim for the most perfect product. Instead let's release new isos regularly; e.g. every month.
Absolutely. iso's should be pushed out very frequently. We don't want to worry about the most recent iso having bugs that have been fixed in the repos, and (in case of core iso's, which I oppose anyway) we don't want any user interaction to be required on the first update after install (i.e. we should push a new iso whenever user interaction is required). -t