On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 17:08 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > ok just to be devils advocate again; how is having an iso labeled > "Extras-KDE" different from having one additional iso in core that has > the kde packages (I'm not sure if kde fills an entire CD but it'll go > quite some way towards that anyway). In the first case you offer the > user the choice to download it or *not* download it if the user isn't > going to use KDE, in the case of KDE-in-core you force downloading that > same ISO on all users, regardless of whether they will install KDE or > not. > Your argument seems to be "but then I have to download an extra iso".... > well you download that iso anyway, and not just you but everyone else > too. > You're right, the ISO argument is flawed and Rahul pointed this out too. And that's not really the argument I was trying to make, but I can see how it comes across like that. For the record, I have no problem with KDE being on a separate ISO, as long as the installer gives one the choice of installing from said ISO at install time. In fact, I think a reorg of the ISOs could be a great thing. As I said in the email I just posted, my concern is more of a maintainership issue of actually officially declaring it an Extras package. Maybe it's a non-issue, but I still have that concern. josh
