On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On 1/22/06, gb spam <gbofspam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > We value everything installs, it works for us and jumping through > > hoops (write web apps; managing kickstart files; using kickstart > > during installs - does it still not tell you if it can't load the > > ks file until you get to a point in the install where your options > > haven't been selected?) is "less convenient" than clicking a check > > box during install. > So let me get this straight.. nothing other than a single check box > during install is going to satify you? There is no room to > compromise? You've drawn the line in the sand and you are holding > your breath? That's unfortunate. um ... no. what's unfortunate is your condescending attitude towards folks who are pointing out that they *like* the concept of an everything install. that would include folks like *me*, by the way. does that mean you're going to insult me as well? > Some of us, are working with the maintainers to identify which > packages are not incorporated into the comps grouping structure > correctly so that the functionality of the install all button will > essentially be duplicate by selecting all displayed packages in all > displayed groups during the install process. ah. in other words, you're *going* to support an "everything" install, you're just going to make it way more inconvenient than it used to be. bravo. progress marches on. rday -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list