Hi
note well that what that point shows is that an everything install may
not have as compelling reason for *existence* as it once did, and i'm
certainly willing to grant that. but it most certainly does *not* show
that it has a "cost." there's a difference.
Of course it does. How many users have you supported that end dealing
with the GFS kernel module issue in FC4 just because they did a
everything installation and had no clue what GFS mean and wouldnt have
installed had it not the installation supported a everything
installation?. I remember dealing with in #fedora, fedora list. fedora
forum and in person atleast three dozen times. In every single instance
that I was able to discuss this in detail with them they agreed they
were doing it out of ignorance about the issues involved.
more to the point, it cannot *possibly* have an associated "cost"
since you can emulate it simply by selecting all of the check boxes on
the screen.
You are working around something that shouldnt be really required for
end users at all who wouldnt use kickstart, yum or pirut.
i have no problem with people arguing against an "everything" install.
but, please -- don't make up bogus arguments to bolster your case.
Please make your case *in support of it* more just that you want it
without providing any good reasons. I have asked for it so many times
already
in any event, there may be reasons why an "everything" install isn't
as important a feature as it once was. but it doesn't appear to have
an actual "cost" associated with it, and it clearly doesn't do any
actual harm. so let's not make those arguments, ok?
It has so many manageability, performance and potential security issues
with packages they wouldnt be using. Did you actually read my entire
rationale against it?
--
Rahul
Fedora Bug Triaging - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list