On Fri, Sep 20, 2002 at 10:59:27AM -0400, Jeremy Katz <katzj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 :)
Hmm, when you get something for free (anaconda source code), doesn't the
old saying "beggars can't be choosers" apply?
> >
> > 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.
Having spent alot of time hacking anaconda and other Red Hat packages, I
have a feel for the incredible amount of code that is written by just a few
developers in a relatively short amount of time - it's fairly impressive.
More important than formal documentation written by Red Hat (for me,
anyway), would be more communication on what is changing, and more
oppurtunity to contribute in real-time. I think you'll find that there are
many of us out here with a vested interest in anaconda that are quite
willing to lighten the load.
Here's a question for Jeremy, Mike, et al:
Is the latest available code for anaconda always available at
ftp://rawhide.redhat.com, and if I were to submit sensible patches against
this SRPM (currently anaconda-7.3.96) are they likely to be considered?
My main fear right now is that I'm patching 7.3, which is outdated, and
that you guys won't even consider any patches if they don't apply directly
to the latest development stream.
cheers,
Tony Clayton
