FC5T2 ready for even a test release?

[Antonio Olivares]

--- Rahul Sundaram <sundaram at redhat.com> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> >>>Let's see *your* cost/benefit analysis.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>Not to anyone who rather would name call rather
> indulge in good
> >>discussions. This is not constructive.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I haven't resorted to that, could I see your
> cost/benefit analysis please?
> >  
> >
> When users ask for features the rationale is
> supplied by them. However I 
> have already presented by ideas
> 
> *  Everything installation installs every package
> including all the 
> language package that is definitely not going to be
> useful for anyone in 
> the same time. There is obsoletely no requirement to
> install all the 
> language packages except the l10N QA team which is a
> corner case
> *  Everything installation is not really everything
> since it doesnt 
> support additional repos like Fedora Extras yet
> during installation
> *  It adds increase burden of manageability (just
> look at GFS kernel 
> module issues in FC4 as a prominent example of how
> many users ran into a 
> unnecessary issue even though they werent using  GFS
> or werent aware of 
> it just because they did a everything installation)
> * The local and remote vulnerability potential
> increases due to the 
> amount of updates that that user has to install
> * For dialup users keep their system updated can be
> even more harder due 
> to unnecessary packages
> * Performance of the system can go down to
> unnecessary services and 
> session programs
> 
> Better package management has resulted in much more
> flexibility post 
> installation to install software on demand. Not
> enough good use cases in 
> support for a everything installation has been
> presented. So if you want 
> to lobby for a particular feature kindly present
> additional reasons why 
> it is being required for end users who wouldnt be
> able to use kickstart, 
> select particular groups during installation,  pirut
> or put post 
> installation. When Fedora Core reduces in size,
> everything installation 
> might be more of a feasible option. Just that some
> users want it is not 
> a good reason to implement any feature without
> understanding the cost 
> involved in long term maintenance and support.
> 
> -- 
> Rahul 
> 
> Fedora Bug Triaging -
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers
> 
> -- 
> fedora-test-list mailing list
> fedora-test-list at redhat.com
> To unsubscribe: 
>
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
> 

I am following this thread closely and I can see the
pro's and con's.  Many times, the everything install
is the best way to go.  You do not want to have to
install any missing dependencies via yum/rpm when you
want to compile a certain tarball for which there is
no rpm available, or there is one, but in your system
it *does not work*.  The security risks are something
that we could live without.  In fact many people do
not update the kernel to the latest one, despite
several vulnerabilities that they keep their existing
kernel because it boots everytime and many things just
work.   

For example in FC4, the default package KDVI (KDE
Graphics) was broken, when you opened a DVI file, KDVI
told you that the file was corrupt.  Being on dialup,
yum update kde-graphics took about 2 to 3 hours at the
time.  I updated it on one of my home machines.  I
read about the vulnerability and I knew I had to
install it.  On the other machine, I changed the kile
configuration to use xdvi package and forget about
kdvi error.  

This are some of the things that we can live with.  I
am well aware of vulnerabilites, and understand why
install everything all those languages that I am not
going to use and I agree with that part.   But the
everything install is much easier and faster to do and
saves time and effort when solving dependencies on
installing other software.   It is a double edged
sword but I strongly agree that the everything option
should be kept there because we are used to it, it was
a part of the old red hat 8.0, red hat 9.0, Fedora
Core 1, 2, 3 and 4.  I know things change, but why
change something that has been there and people feel
comfortable with it.   *Also keep the new changes they
are awesome too* but that "Custom Install" Everything
Install is missing.  

> Just that some
> users want it is not 
> a good reason to implement any feature without
> understanding the cost 
> involved in long term maintenance and support.

What does that magic button(s) cost to implement when
it has been living there for sometime already?   The
changes are welcomed, but what has been the cost and
long term maintence and support have been throughout
the Fedora Release cycles?

Why is Fedora trying to reduce the Core?  Why is
wanting to become like Ubuntu?  Fedora is great as it
is!  Why change it to less CD's, and us having to
search for packages that are and have been there for
ages.

Sorry to get involved, but I felt the need.

Best Regards,

Antonio

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com