I suppose that the most valuable part of that ISAR part would be:

- create the image for one of all the supported architecture and systems

- create a bootable image for the related architecture and system

In such a way that this provide the ISAR user the ability to make a bootable installation USB-key with the related customizable menu to install and storage device.

It is the "separate" adjective that makes me ask about it. Because, otherwise every USB bootable key template that provide

- boot loader

- root filesystem with some tools and a terminal - mainly, busybox

- an autoresize data partition to fullfil all the extra space in the USB key whatever the size would be.

This can provide a separate installer image (or a template for it) because the data partition will contain the image to install on the target system. 

Limited to the supported platform and architectures {x86, ia64, arm6, amr7}, it can be easily achieved with tinycore.

Therefore, my curiosity is about the "separate" meaning. It is separate by ISAR project because it has not been or it is not planed to be integrated with it or it is separated because it is something completely different from the ISAR building e.g. the USB bootable installer is not created from the same source or binaries that are included into the image created by ISAR?

 Best regards, R-