On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 14:47:45 -0700 Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Feb 21, 2014, at 12:46 PM, Mike Ruckman <roshi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > The hard part, IMO, is figuring out what 'common configurations' > > should be included with the installer. > > I think the hard part is having the guts to make a subjective, yet > reasonably well informed decision, and just stick to it. Harder for > some than others is ignoring the peripheral squawking that ensues, > but is easier when reminded that 99% of those people aren't the > intended target market for this path. > > The ideological decision, is that there should be no partition scheme > option. Not which one should be chosen. If I bemoan Btrfs vanishing > from the Automatic/guided path partition scheme pop-up, give me an > egg and tell me to suck it. Seriously. I agree with you. The ideological decision is easy - I was just pointing out that using terms like 'common configuration' leads to this kind of 'what gets included when?' decision tree. I don't have any hard opinions on how things 'should' be - I'm no expert in this arena. > > I would imagine the answer to > > this is going to be different for each of the WG products. I > > wouldn't be surprised if going forward we end up with multiple > > installers (at some point down the line) - or multiple versions of > > anaconda. > > I go in the other direction. Chop out everything that causes the > installer to be customizable by product, and instead have a > post-install interface that flavors the base install as a particular > product and downloads whatever else is necessary to achieve that. > > What is in common for Server and Workstation? They have to boot, and > startup to a working prompt or gdm. That's all the installer needs to > do to be successful. Goose. Gander. Good. > > I think we shoot ourselves in both feet by creating derivatives of > the installer. Maybe it's realistic to have each product decide what, > if anything, is hidden. But we are only talking about two products. > The Cloud product will have images, installer isn't applicable. > That sounds reasonable to me. I don't like the idea of deviating from one installer - and I would argue against it if proposed. However, I can see all too easily people wanting to. > > Chris Murphy >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
