FC4 does not work, 'out of the box' for me; GUI/X11 fails

[Robin Laing]

William Hooper wrote:
> Robin Laing wrote:
> 
>>William Hooper wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Les Mikesell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 11:23, William Hooper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>And how many people want to test these ISO sets bi-weekly to make
>>>>>sure no bugs have creeped in?
>>>>
>>>>Won't the same bugs be installed from the same RPMs whether yum pulls
>>>> them in slowly over the network or anaconda installs then from an
>>>>ISO?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bugs in the RPM packages yes, bugs in the install environment, no.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why do you think there are 3 test ISO sets before each release?  That
>>>way the installer environment gets tested.
>>>
>>
>>The install environment wouldn't change.  It would still have the same
>>packages as the original installer did.  This would only change if for some
>>reason a package was split.
> 
> 
> If the install environment won't change, then you can't use an updated
> kernel or X during the install, let alone an updated version of Anaconda. 
> That means most (if not all) of the install bugs won't be fixed.  What was
> the point of creating new ISOs again?
> 

My knowledge of anaconda is about zero.  I assumed when I responded 
that anaconda would look at package x and install it if selected.  Now 
if that isn't the case then my answer is wrong.  I assumed that the 
installer would look at a database of packages and then build from 
that.  It didn't care what revision or epoc but that the package was 
available.

But the installer then should be changed to work  in a way that it 
does not require such defined packages.

Is it really a big deal to convert the packages within an ISO from x.1 
to x.2?


Why cannot it say select package kernel and install the latest kernel.
kernel-2.6.12-1.1456_FC4 last month.
kernel-2.6.13-1.1526_FC4 this month.
kernel-2.6.13-1.1532_FC4 next month.


-- 
Robin Laing