2006/1/26, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxx>: > Nils Philippsen wrote: > > >On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 20:03 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > > > > > >>No it doesnt. I made my argument with detailed rationale on why I > >>believe it is not useful in general cases. If you disagree with me, feel > >>free to do so but I would like to hear a detailed set of use cases that > >>make it a convincing enough argument for Anaconda to support it for end > >>users apart from Kickstart capability. > >> > >> > > > >What most people complain about here is AFAICS that we completely > >removed (instead of just hid) an option they valued and that was a well > >tested (by them), supposedly no-brainer sort of code path, very much > >unlikely to give any problems down the road. > > > You are thinking about this from the development perspective. The code > base is a no brainer but from the support perspective the number of > issues that a everything installation has caused is innumerous. > Specifically in Fedora, try doing a everythings installation of FC4 and > try running yum update. Watch GFS module packages fail. > > -- > 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 > well but the issues it triggers are identified issues... the issues also exist without an everything install... just my point of view. found and reproduceable issues are already half fixed issues ;)) (i am a positive thinker) regards, rudolf kastl -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list