On 10/31/2014 09:35 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
On 10/31/2014 02:10 PM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
Can you confirm whether this is the procedure used by the official CentOS build scripts?
No, I don't think so, as one has to buid the vmlinuz/initrd.img and other bits before being able to respin such variant .. but that's not what you asked for iirc :-)
Also, worth noting that if you are building the entire installer and environment, you should not be calling your end result 'CentOS', you've effectively built a fork of CentOS.
That's, ummm, interesting... when the end result is going to be exactly the same as a stock install plus some other stuff and the only difference is the automation of adding the other stuff. Do the rest of us have to rename our systems too?
Rebuilding the installer would then modify the .discinfo and .treeinfo of the install and it would make that ISO not work against any normal CentOS tree. It then is no longer CentOS and you can't distribute that as CentOS. Fairly simple.
If you want to rebuild an installer and redistribute something, that is what SIGs are for. Community reviewed and agreed upon process, produced on the official CentOS Community Build System. It can be called CentOS and the entire process will be completely open and available to all SIGs that need them. It will also be approved by the CentOS Board.
So, yes, if you change the directories that make it CentOS, respin those parts of the ISO (ie, change the installer parts, the treeinfo and discinfo), and try to redistribute that then it is not CentOS.
If, on the other hand, you take a minimal install ISO, leave all the original pieces alone, add other stuff to it that is additive only, then it is your thing on top of CentOS as a kickstart to happen after the CentOS install .. and you can call it 'Your Thing' on CentOS. But you can't call that just CentOS .. it is 'Your Thing' on CentOS.