[RULE] Installing Fedora FC2 with Slinky

[Franz Zahaurek]

"Ingo Lantschner" <ingo.lists at vum.at> writes:

> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 01:40:48 +0200, Franz Zahaurek <fzk at fzk.at> wrote:
>
>
>> I remember, that I couldn't extract the slinky_devel.0.3.97.tar either
>> but didn't think much about it.  I used root and afterwards changed
>> the owership to my account.  Well, now I see, that was a bad idea at
>> all because the nodes in .../slinky-0.3.98/filesystem/dev are gateways
>> to the hardware and should only be owned by root.  That's one point to
>> be corrected.
> This behaivior is by design :-) Its documented in the vumBOX-Handbook
> based on a post from this list. For your convenience here is the
> according  part. I thin this should be included into the tarball as
> README:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> How to make a Custom Slinky ISO (like this one, the so called vum:BOX):
> Quoting Michael Fratoni  mfratoni at tuxfan.homeip.net :
> [...]

Thank you for the hint - better should have read the vumBOX-Handbook
carfully.

> [...]
>> And the archive itself should be named
>> slinky-devel-0.3.97.tar. to be consistent.
> May be the version should change?! If it installs FC2 now, even to
> lets  say 1.0 Beta?!?

Isn't this too optimistic?  0.4.01 would do.

The drawbacks of the present FC2 installation as far as I have noticed:
*) composition of packages - that's a longtime term
*) ownership and permissions in .../dev - error
*) the installation is fixed to cdrom   - error
*) RPM-GPG-KEY is not recognized correctly - error
*) the installed kernel is i568 while all rpms are i368 and besides it
   does not boot with 8MB - this is sensless in slinky-context

I would suggest the following priorities to solve these and make the
RULE-installation really usefull:
1) cleanup the errors
2) ashure, that the different installation methods realy work
3) bootstrap original rpm with busybox-rpm - don't know if this can work
4) free up most space on disk2 by dropping rpm.gz and replace it with a
   suitable actual kernel for i386 (by now 2.6.8.1)
5) drop eject from the installation disks and use eject from FC2 (this
   is not consistent if the installing is form cdrom)

What do you think?  Please reference to the topics.

- Franz
-- 
Franz Zahaurek                        fzk at fzk.at
Gymnasiumstr. 26/7                    http://www.fzk.at
1180 Wien

_______________________________________________
Original home page of the RULE project: www.rule-project.org
Rule-list at rule-project.org
http://rita.choice-secure.com/mailman/listinfo/rule-list_rule-project.org