updatedb disabled?

[Peter Arremann]

On Saturday 16 April 2005 09:41, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
<snip>
> Making the right solution a target for fc5 is fine, I have no
> significant problem with seeing anacron extended as soon as its
> reasonably possible.
<snip>

ok - so the plan is to replace one thing that is done wrong (suck battery 
life) with another thing that is wrong (not run as users got to expect it for 
years) for one release only and then come up with a good solution? 
Not arguing that its nessecary and all or how it should be fixed - just what 
is the logic behind it? It was wrong for years, so why not leave it wrong for 
one more release rather than have it change with FC4 and then again in FC5 
and cause a ton of confusion with the users? Leave it in FC4 the way it is 
and then fix it properly in FC5... that way you only have one transition and 
its one that you can actually explain to users. 

I at least had a hard time talking to the other guys at work and say "Yes, I 
know from our perspective they are asking 99% of all guys that run a desktop 
to do more work so it benefits the 1% that run a laptop, but this makes more 
sense!" 

Peter.