[CentOS-devel] Question about generating a spin of CentOS 7

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Fri Oct 31 15:00:28 UTC 2014

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:38 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote:
> On 10/31/2014 02:35 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> 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?
> you might want to reread what I wrote and try parsing it ....

It is not at all clear how that maps into reality.  I install a lot of
different ways, including clonezilla, ReaR, and cloning VM images.

> if you rebuild the installer, its not an official CentOS build, hasent
> been tested or released as one;
> adding a kickstart and rebuilding the iso with mkisofs does not rebuild
> the installer; but you know that already.

OK. so how does ReaR or clonezilla fit into that scheme?  ReaR builds
its own boot iso with the system tools, Clonezilla boots with
something else entirely.   Cloning a VMware image does some of its own
magic tweaks.  But the result of all of these things, including a
specifically rebuilt iso and installer may be a copy of a perfectly
stock system - the same thing you would have if you did an install
step first, then the customizations.   The latter is becoming my
preferred approach but I always have network access.   I can see
situations where a self-contained one-step install would be better.
Maybe the minimal install build could look for a 2nd partition on the
iso or a mounted usb for a continuation script.

   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com

More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list