[arch-releng] [RFC] one more step forward to become archiso as self-pxe-server...

Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi vmlinuz386 at yahoo.com.ar
Sat Dec 3 08:20:08 EST 2011

On 12/03/2011 07:17 AM, Thomas Bächler wrote:
> Am 03.12.2011 02:08, schrieb Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi:
>>> I don't see the point in adding FTP - HTTP is superior in any way. Other
>>> than that: Our .sfs images are rather tiny, you will barely notice the
>>> difference, so no objections from me.
>> OK, I will only add darkhttp. If HTTP works then also FTP will work from
>> the point of view of the hook.
> Indeed. My concerns with FTP again:
> 1) gPXE/iPXE do not support FTP as it seems (only HTTP).
Yes. Support it. but is normally not built-in, like HTTPS.

Note: gPXE is not activelly maintained. I still use gpxe because of the 
nice online generator.
iPXE is the active a fork. Indeed qemu switched to iPXE in this year.
> 2) In general, FTP is more problematic from the network point-of-view,
> as it needs to open two connections.
> 3) HTTP is more stable than FTP from my experience.
I agree.

I will remove the word FTP from the README and the wiki. Just let the 
user to discover that:
"hey it use curl!, so I can use FTP HTTPS  and others....."

What do you think about rename hook archiso_pxe_curl -> archiso_pxe_http
and also bootparm archiso_curl_url= -> archiso_http_srv= ?

>> geek comment: maybe it just fit in the multiple of current ISO padding
>> size :P
> I prefer to remaster the ISO onto USB (copy /arch, install syslinux) or
> netboot it over the internet. My concern therefore is the size of the
> .sfs files, not the actual .iso.

Sure, my comment was a joke ;)

Gerardo Exequiel Pozzi
\cos^2\alpha + \sin^2\alpha = 1

More information about the arch-releng mailing list