On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 02:10 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote: > 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? Yet you expect the comps maintainers to be able to make a decision about what every other person needs without knowing those people? That's a laugh. > >> 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. There was no solution there. > >> 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. You still didn't answer the question. How is yum supposed to know it's 'not allowed to install it'. Where have you ran into a situation where anaconda showed you a checkbox you were not allowed to check? I'm honestly curious why this is even being talked about. > > >> 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. Neither will the meaning of 'minimal' be. Will it have networking? Will it have yum? Will it have ssh? Will it speak my language? So on, and so forth. > 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. Neither is not reviewing the selection and being "surprised" when there is a lot of stuff installed. The software screen even says: "The default installation of Fedora includes a set of software applicable for general internet usage. What additional tasks would you like your system to include support for?" In what way does that sound like "just adding what else I need will result in a very minimal install with just what I added"? > >> 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? -- 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
