GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 666368
Single-password setup
Last modified: 2016-03-31 13:57:16 UTC
For unattended installation, we should create a setup where user have to only authenticate once (when connecting to the box). Following needs to be done for that to work: * Use the provided password at wizard's setup screen to be the SPICE password. * Enable autologin We must ensure that if autologin can not be setup for an OS, we shouldn't set SPICE password either then as that will serve contrary to the intended purpose.
Created attachment 204294 [details] [review] Set SPICE password when doing express installation Use the provided password for user authentication as SPICE connection password as well.
Review of attachment 204294 [details] [review]: looks like it would work, ack
(In reply to comment #2) > Review of attachment 204294 [details] [review]: > > looks like it would work, ack It does :)
Would be nice to add auto-login in the guest with the same patch set.
(In reply to comment #4) > Would be nice to add auto-login in the guest with the same patch set. Same patch or patch set? Its already enabled for windows but can't seem to find any straight-forward way to enable it for Fedora. :(
Created attachment 204701 [details] [review] express: Set SPICE password when doing Use the provided password for user authentication as SPICE connection password as well.
Created attachment 204702 [details] [review] express,fedora: Enable autologin for Fedora It was already enabled for windows express installations.
Created attachment 204703 [details] [review] fedora,express: Run postinst commands inside chroot
Review of attachment 204701 [details] [review]: ack ::: src/vm-configurator.vala @@ +40,3 @@ + var unattended = install_media as UnattendedInstaller; + + if (unattended.express_install && unattended.password != "") in general, I prefer using a nullable for an optionnal argument, but in this case, I guess it makes sense.
Review of attachment 204703 [details] [review]: I would merge the two "fedora,express" patches, otherwise it would be nice to have a motivation for each patch
(In reply to comment #10) > Review of attachment 204703 [details] [review]: > > I would merge the two "fedora,express" patches, otherwise it would be nice to > have a motivation for each patch My motivation is the simple rule of 'separate change, separate commit'. I'm OK with following yours on this but I haven't yet figured how you make these decisions so I could do the same way.
Attachment 204701 [details] pushed as 866c280 - express: Set SPICE password when doing Attachment 204702 [details] pushed as 96d56dc - express,fedora: Enable autologin for Fedora Attachment 204703 [details] pushed as 82030ef - fedora,express: Run postinst commands inside chroot
(In reply to comment #11) > (In reply to comment #10) > > Review of attachment 204703 [details] [review] [details]: > > > > I would merge the two "fedora,express" patches, otherwise it would be nice to > > have a motivation for each patch > > My motivation is the simple rule of 'separate change, separate commit'. I'm OK > with following yours on this but I haven't yet figured how you make these > decisions so I could do the same way. Darn and now I screwed-up and pushed even the commit that wasn't set to 'commit_now'. :( But would be good to know for next time. :)
For the records: 14:21 <elmarco> better when you understand the purpose of the patch, and it actually does something.. 14:22 <elmarco> so I am not fond of rewrite etc.. 14:24 <elmarco> if I go back to 96d56dc, I guess it still doesn't work (but that's because I suppose 82030ef fixed it) 14:25 <elmarco> but none of this is written done in the commit, and in the end, I don't really care 14:25 <elmarco> you add autologin, you need the patch after, so just put the together 14:25 <elmarco> it's like if you would commit seperate lines of code otherwise 14:25 <elmarco> it's easy to split and split etc.. but doesn it make sense??
(In reply to comment #14) > 14:22 <elmarco> so I am not fond of rewrite etc.. Unmotivated rewrite, such as adding namespace, moving things around, etc.. if there is no advantage. Simplification is always good, of course.