On 11/08/2012 05:14 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 8 November 2012 10:06, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" <johannbg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 11/08/2012 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:32:29PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Or if I rephrase why could not the community continue to use
Anaconda in it's form that it existed in F17 until the "new
installer" was *completly* done?
Because nobody in the community did the work to make the F17 Anaconda
work in F18?
This also touches on "Who's responsible for an feature"
Just recently FESCO decided *for* Kay that he was responsible to ensure the
migration related docs and what not kept working for the name change of
configuration files that takes place in systemd ( which was not even a
feature ) Applying the same logic here the Anaconda developers themselves
would have been responsible keeping the "old code" working until the new one
was ready to completely replace it.
Your problem is that you are assuming a lot of things without actually
doing any legwork to find out what anaconda does. Anaconda does a lot
of probing of hardware which changes when kernels change. Anaconda
requires changes when dracut changes APIs. Every release requires
changes in what is blacklisted and what is not blacklisted. It
requires dealing with the usual multiple changes in python apis and
such. It has other changes due to EFI or secure boot or other
features. None of them are trivial and doing them in parallel is
usually not possible.
Not that your response is relate to who's responsible for making those
changes, but is that not a fundamental flaw in the installer and it's
design?
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
