Using OS X Mountain Lion GM (Golden Master) as a base image

[jrtilson]

Hello,

I'm just wondering if it's safe/possible to use the recently released GM Seed of Mountain Lion as a base image?

My biggest concern is not being able to apply updates going forward. We will be purchasing a volume license upon release.

Has anyone done this before with a previous OS X release?

- Jeff

[mzago · Accepted solution]

Possible yes, but safe it is not. Like mm2270 says they can always make a tweak to the public release. This is especially true now that they don't have to ship new disks and the OS comes from the app store.

I'd use the GM release to QA your workflow, and then drop in the public release InstallESD to rebuild your image and verify everything is OK.

[donmontalvo]

NDA... ;) Might want to post here...

https://devforums.apple.com/community/mac/pre

Don

[mm2270]

I would say don't do it. Apple has been known to change things at the last minute before public release (and not ship another GM to devs) That could give you headaches if it happens. I don't think you'd have a problem with updates per se. But something else could change and you'd find yourself rebuilding your base OS image.

Just wait. Its only a matter of days at this point. My 2¢

[mzago]

Possible yes, but safe it is not. Like mm2270 says they can always make a tweak to the public release. This is especially true now that they don't have to ship new disks and the OS comes from the app store.

I'd use the GM release to QA your workflow, and then drop in the public release InstallESD to rebuild your image and verify everything is OK.

[mzago · Accepted solution]

Possible yes, but safe it is not. Like mm2270 says they can always make a tweak to the public release. This is especially true now that they don't have to ship new disks and the OS comes from the app store.

I'd use the GM release to QA your workflow, and then drop in the public release InstallESD to rebuild your image and verify everything is OK.

[rockpapergoat · Accepted solution]

agreed on all counts, but also consider automating your base image creation via instadmg or other methods so that recreating it is painless.

if you do that, it doesn't much matter what you use as the source. if there's some difference with the shipping build of 10.8, drop it in and build.

[jrtilson]

Thanks for all the responses! I'll look into the automated methods you guys mentioned and go from there.

[bentoms]

You can also create a clean image via compiling in Casper Admin.

End result is the same as InstaDMG. (a clean image).

[daworley]

There is actually a rather large difference between the end result of a InstaDMG versus compiled Casper image when looking at images of 10.7 and presumably later:

InstaDMG only makes the base OS partition, and does not include the Recovery Partition. As of this point I do not know how to have InstaDMG create a recovery partition with the same ease as it does the base OS partition.

A compiled config in Casper Admin creates both the base OS as well as Recovery Partition in the same deployable .dmg file.

I use both sets of tools depending on what I want to accomplish, but it is important to know the end result will be.

[bentoms]

Good point Douglas, forgot to mention it!

That is one of the reason I use it. Simplifies things for me & means I do not need another tool.

[Kumarasinghe]

I use Casper Admin and InstallESD compiled method to get a cleaner image with recovery partition. I think this is the way to go.

Please vote here to get JAMF's official support for InstallESD method.
https://jamfnation.jamfsoftware.com/featureRequest.html?id=606

[rockpapergoat]

the recovery partition isn't critical in my current environment. plus, full disk encryption on all laptops throws another wrench into the mix. for those needing the recovery partition, i have a pkg that creates it. works fine and can be deployed after the initial deployment.

[jrtilson]

@rockpapergoat Last year we ended having an imaging environment that didn't include a recovery partition.. I think I'd like to include it this time around. How did you go about making a package to create it?

Edit: Nevermind, found some instructions here https://jamfnation.jamfsoftware.com/article.html?id=173

[rockpapergoat]

jeff, i use the luggage to pack up the recovery update and a postflight script. it's crude but works.

https://gist.github.com/3105550

rich has more here:

http://derflounder.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/removing-and-rebuilding-a-malfunctioning-recover-hd-part...

[rtrouton]

I've got an updated way to package a Recovery HD installer available here:

http://derflounder.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/creating-an-updated-recovery-hd/

The general method should also work for Mountain Lion.

[jrtilson]

@rtrouton @rockpapergoat

Thanks for the help guys.

[Banks]

InstaDMG creates ASR'able/bootable volumes, it is not a deployment suite - it is an image preparation tool. DeployStudio, SIU's NetRestore, and Casper's whosamawhatsit (I guess) can all lay recovery partitions down down.... after pulling them off of systems... not necessarily with any logic about what hardware it's then restoring it to. Please take heed to the process @rtrouton documented (collaborated on with @golby and others) if you have machines that need hardware-specific recovery partitions, which I'd bet there's one or two that do.

[PeterClarke]

Hi, Well it's OK to use Mountain Lion GM for TESTING

BUT you should NOTE that APPLE state that they will NEVER release any updates for the Developer Preview once the Full Release is available…

Also, deploying the developer preview contravenes the EULA
– Because you have to have valid licenses, AND because it's never updated…

So – Good to use for testing at this point
BAD to use for deployment.

Apple also specifically say that the Developer release requires a complete disk wipe before installing the Release version…

Apple would also offer no guarantees that recovery tools from the developer version would work with the release version - but they probably do.

So I hope that answer helps to clarify that status of using pre-release software.

It's definitely "UNSAFE" to use a pre-release version as a base image.
– due to the NO-UPDATES issue… (Then there's the licensing issue)…

The Pre-Release version has a different internal ID-Code, and will NOT accept Apple Software Updates – once the full version is released.

[bentoms]

Are you sure there are no updates?

I built 5 Mac Mini servers on Lion's day of release from the GM that became release & they are still updating fine...

[donmontalvo]

@PeterClarke...

It's definitely "UNSAFE" to use a pre-release version as a base image.

Prerelease ? Golden Master

(Then there's the licensing issue)

How?

[kennyo]

So quick question, For those of you who have used the InstallESD option to build your images in Casper Admin, Did you have any issues with Admin Analyzing and Validating the10.8 DMG? I'm getting this error.

The DMG does not appear to be a valid Adobe installer, Adobe Updater or Mac OS X Installation disk.

I'm currently running Casper v 8.5.2 and running Admin from machine with a fresh copy of 10.8. Is the validation even possible yet, or do we need to wait for a new release of Casper?

Thx!

[PeterClarke]

Some one asked - am I sure there are no Updates to Lion GM.

Answer:
Currently you MAY find updates to Lion GM being listed, downloadable and installable.

BUT when the Final Lion Release is made - with a different internal ID code.
Any NEW updates will ONLY be applicable to the Release version, while the developer Pre-Release version, will become orphaned.

I have seen this happen before with other OS X version releases, so I have no reason to expect different this time around.

And if you think about it, this policy makes sense.

So my advice would be to use the Mountain Lion Pre-Release for TESTING only.

And to rebuild on the release version once it's released.
It would perhaps be wise to retest with the release version too.
– although few differences would be expected.

[donmontalvo]

@PeterClarke...

You keep referring to the Mountain Lion Golden Master as a "Pre-Release". Are we on the same page on what Golden Master means? :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_master

I have seen this happen before with other OS X version releases, so I have no reason to expect different this time around.

Are you referring to patches? This thread is about the Mountain Lion GM. There hasn't been a GM that had to be pulled and re-issued before being released to the public, since the inception of Mac OS X.

Come to think of it, haven't seen this happen back to Mac OS 6 days...please correct me if I'm wrong. :)

Still curious about your earlier statement regarding...

{quote} @PeterClarke wrote: (Then there's the licensing issue)

@donmontalvo asked: How?
{/quote}

Don

[talkingmoose]

My two cents:

The more apt term in this case would probably be "Release Candidate" rather than "Golden Master".

Call it "rule of thumb" or "best practice" or "basic administrator common sense" but you should use only publicly released software in production environments. Doesn't matter if you're referring to Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, Version X or Special Edition Y. Get your software from the same place everyone else gets his. All else is for testing.

[donmontalvo]

Get your software from the same place everyone else gets his. All else is for testing.

Golden Master means exactly that...always has...

In hardware and software development, a golden master is the reference model from which copies are mass-produced.

Golden Master means if an issue is found, any fix will be released separately as a patch.

Release Candidate ? Golden Master

Don

[talkingmoose]

@Don

I'm not disputing the definition of Golden Master. I would, however, suggest that Apple is loosely using that term and should instead be using "Release Candidate", which is not the same thing.

You may recall that Apple's build number for its developer GM of Lion didn't match its build number from the Mac App Store. It actually released a different (older) version to the public. Why? Any guess would be speculation.

Again, my two cents. Use common sense. Wait for the publicly released bits. Apple will only support what it releases publicly.

[donmontalvo]

You may recall that Apple's build number for its developer GM of Lion didn't match its build number from the Mac App Store.

We tested every Lion seed, including the GM version. The version released to the public matched the GM version. Are we sure we're not confusing GM release with model-specific builds? :)

...I think the way to settle this is to bet 1 physical beer, payable at JNUC. :D

[talkingmoose]

I just recall the discussions and the mild uproar on the tubes. I didn't participate.

Love how you stipulate "physical beer" like faxing's not good enough. ;-)