Regarding install options

[Jesse Keating]

On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 21:52 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> I've spent 3 days just trying to /find/ all the crap Anaconda put on a 
> computer that I didn't check off.


You spend 3 days reading the install log?  Do you have reading
comprehension problems?  I wouldn't think so given the emails and blog
posts you produce...

>  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.

> 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!"

> 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.

> 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)

> 
> 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!

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20081022/346fa484/attachment.sig>