On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 21:52 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote: > I've spent 3 days just trying to /find/ all the crap Anaconda put on a > computer that I didn't check off. You spend 3 days reading the install log? Do you have reading comprehension problems? I wouldn't think so given the emails and blog posts you produce... > Now, when I install Fedora on a > server, I reboot and start over if I see anything that looks even > remotely desktop-related. This is a broken use case. > Solutions are: > > 1) Add the "dependencies have been added" screen that every other > package install tool in the distro has but Anaconda insists on going > without. Have you filed this RFE in bugzilla against anaconda? Unless you make this an autoclosing summary you've just broken a feature that people have been asking for for quite a while, the ability to just walk away once depsolving starts. If depsolving is successful the install should just start without any further interaction. Also, fun to figure out for kickstarts. > 2) Have checkboxes in the package screen be tri-state. (checked if you > want it, unchecked if you don't want it, red x if yum is not allowed to > install it for any reason). This one's not pretty, but it'd work. And just how is yum supposed to know that it can't install it? Where does that information come from, and if we have that information, why would we ever even display the package then? "Here is something you can't click! neener neener neeeeener!" > 3) Provide a default install. We have one, it's what happens if you go next next next. It's defined in comps by the groups that are marked as default and the packages therein that are defined as mandatory and default. It's also what you get in kickstarts if you do %packages --default. > Believe me, I won't agree with what you > put in it at all. I will, however, be happier than I am now. Then be happy. > 4) Document the procedure a few emails up on how to install just @core > or @core + @base . I didn't even know the system would run right if you > unchecked everything. It all depends on your definition of "run". It'll boot. Does one really need to document the process of unchecking boxes? (or checking the Base group box) > > Spending a little energy and not pleasing everyone is a lot better than > spending no energy and epic failing. You have an epic ability to blow things out of proportion. Maybe if you looked at the anaconda source, or comps, and provided patches for what you'd like to see, not only would it be helpful, but you'd also have more code to rant about in your blogs! -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
