Jesse Keating wrote:
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...
Having been around longer and now knowing what all of that is, it takes
less time these days. Do we expect everyone who just doesn't want what
they didn't ask for to know what libpango does? Or do we just expect
them to try each and every package in there and see which ones do and do
not try to take yum with them?
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.
You've posed a problem and a solution.
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!"
All reasons it isn't pretty.
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.
I meant "minimal" instead of "default." Typo
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)
None of this is apparent to a user who doesn't know about Fedora. Again,
the line here is not just technical and non-technical. Will the Debian
administrator who is trying out Fedora think of this procedure the first
time out? Likely he'll try to select all the packages he wants and end
up getting a hundred things he didn't. Install nothing and add later is
not the first instinct of the user.
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!
Oh, were those /your/ cheerios I was pissing in?
--CJD
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
