On Thu, 2002-09-19 at 09:34, Tony Nugent wrote:
> On Thu Sep 19 2002 at 14:52, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, John wrote:
> > > Surely there's something better then ed.
Well on the purely editing side for what packages are what groups, I
generally use emacs ;-) For the dependency lists, they're autogenerated
-- more info coming soon.
> One of the major problems with anaconda has been the distinct lack
> of documentation about all its bit'n'pieces and how to use it all.
Working on some documentation on the new comps file stuff. It's just a
little slow going because every time I get started, I get distracted by
another fire to put out. I'll get there, though. My goal is by the
release date at the latest.
> I believe that providing documentation for anaconda is RedHat's
> responsibility, not mine (yes, RESPONSIBILITY!) Not unless they
> offer to pay me for the time and effort to write it for them :)
>
> So please all you good redhat folks ("RedChaps":), don't you think
> it is about time to include some DECENT documentataion with the
> anaconda package in the next major release?
Give me a time machine... there are only really two of us working on
anaconda right now and anaconda isn't even all we work on. 24 hours in
a day, and we can only spend so many of them working :) We're trying,
though and making some progress... slowly, but surely.
Also, if you've watched the anaconda package closely, you'll notice the
added url tag of http://rhlinux.redhat.com/anaconda/. The plan is to
use it for putting up docs we get the time to write outside of being
tied to the distribution release cycle.
Jeremy
