What is the high-level goal here? The bug description says:
> Having a netboot image would be a step towards further usage (like MAAS ...).
But d-i netboot images are not a precursor to MAAS netboot support for the architecture; these are entirely separate codebases. d-i is also not a recommended install method for KVM instances: we recommend either boot-in-place cloud images, or, in the case of MAAS KVM pods, you would use MAAS netboot + curtin.
d-i is thus not really on the roadmap at all for Canonical's scale infrastructure products, and would not be a priority for Foundations to implement without some other external driver. Should this bug be reassigned to maas/maas-images/curtin?
What is the high-level goal here? The bug description says:
> Having a netboot image would be a step towards further usage (like MAAS ...).
But d-i netboot images are not a precursor to MAAS netboot support for the architecture; these are entirely separate codebases. d-i is also not a recommended install method for KVM instances: we recommend either boot-in-place cloud images, or, in the case of MAAS KVM pods, you would use MAAS netboot + curtin.
d-i is thus not really on the roadmap at all for Canonical's scale infrastructure products, and would not be a priority for Foundations to implement without some other external driver. Should this bug be reassigned to maas/maas- images/ curtin?