On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 11:50 +0100, Fabiano FidĂȘncio wrote:
> It sounds like we can just provide install= unconditionally,
same as
> we currently do with ks=? We'd have to verify doing so doesn't cause
> any unintended side-effects for existing guest types.
I'd rather have it done in a more explicit way, just for the sake of
someone else trying to debug / understand the code later on.
A comment in the code will do just fine, in my opinion. And then,
when we can start relying on a new enough virt-install, we can drop
the workaround with minimal fuss.
Our unconditional use of ks= could also benefit from being explained
in a comment, by the way. I'll post a patch for that shortly.
--
Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization