Skip to content

Conversation

@jloeser
Copy link
Contributor

@jloeser jloeser commented Sep 25, 2025

During network based provisioning, there are two stages where either TFTP or HTTP(S) can be used: fetching the boot loader and fetching installation files such as Linux kernel and initrd.

Both were partly mixed, partly incomplete, and instructions were ambiguous or did not work.

What changes are you introducing?

Why are you introducing these changes? (Explanation, links to references, issues, etc.)

Anything else to add? (Considerations, potential downsides, alternative solutions you have explored, etc.)

Contributor checklists

  • I am okay with my commits getting squashed when you merge this PR.
  • I am familiar with the contributing guidelines.

Please cherry-pick my commits into:

  • Foreman 3.16/Katello 4.18 (Satellite 6.18)
  • Foreman 3.15/Katello 4.17
  • Foreman 3.14/Katello 4.16 (Satellite 6.17; orcharhino 7.4)
  • Foreman 3.13/Katello 4.15 (EL9 only)
  • Foreman 3.12/Katello 4.14 (Satellite 6.16; orcharhino 7.2 on EL9 only; orcharhino 7.3)
  • Foreman 3.11/Katello 4.13 (orcharhino 6.11 on EL8 only; orcharhino 7.0 on EL8+EL9; orcharhino 7.1 with Leapp)
  • Foreman 3.10/Katello 4.12
  • Foreman 3.9/Katello 4.11 (Satellite 6.15; orcharhino 6.8/6.9/6.10)
  • We do not accept PRs for Foreman older than 3.9.

@github-actions github-actions bot added Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective Needs style review Requires a review from docs style/grammar perspective Needs testing Requires functional testing labels Sep 25, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@maximiliankolb maximiliankolb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

some suggestions on style/conventions.

@pr-processor pr-processor bot added Waiting on contributor Requires an action from the author Needs re-review and removed Not yet reviewed Waiting on contributor Requires an action from the author labels Sep 25, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@maximiliankolb maximiliankolb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

one minor suggestion. Overall, LGTM style-wise.

@Lennonka
Copy link
Contributor

@stejskalleos Can you please review this?

Copy link
Contributor

@stejskalleos stejskalleos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Tech ACK

@Lennonka Lennonka added tech review done No issues from the technical perspective and removed Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective labels Oct 7, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@maximiliankolb maximiliankolb left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

style-wise LGTM

@maximiliankolb maximiliankolb added style review done No issues from docs style/grammar perspective and removed Needs style review Requires a review from docs style/grammar perspective labels Oct 8, 2025
@maximiliankolb
Copy link
Contributor

@jloeser Please rebase your branch to HEAD of "master" and resolve the merge conflicts.

@jloeser
Copy link
Contributor Author

jloeser commented Oct 10, 2025

I rebuilt/tested documentation locally and it LGTM.

@jloeser jloeser marked this pull request as draft October 10, 2025 11:22
@jloeser
Copy link
Contributor Author

jloeser commented Oct 10, 2025

Looks like we need some technical adaptions regarding HTTPS - it simply does not work at all with GRUB2.

I will take care ...

During network based provisioning, there are two stages where either
TFTP or HTTP(S) can be used: fetching the boot loader and fetching
installation files such as Linux kernel and initrd.

Both were partly mixed, partly incomplete, and instructions were
ambiguous or did not work.
@jloeser
Copy link
Contributor Author

jloeser commented Oct 10, 2025

Related: theforeman/foreman#10718

@jloeser jloeser marked this pull request as ready for review October 10, 2025 12:37
@jloeser jloeser marked this pull request as draft October 10, 2025 14:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Needs testing Requires functional testing style review done No issues from docs style/grammar perspective tech review done No issues from the technical perspective

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants