On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On 1/22/06, gb spam <gbofspam(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> We value everything installs, it works for us and jumping through
> hoops (write web apps; managing kickstart files; using kickstart
> during installs - does it still not tell you if it can't load the
> ks file until you get to a point in the install where your options
> haven't been selected?) is "less convenient" than clicking a check
> box during install.
So let me get this straight.. nothing other than a single check box
during install is going to satify you? There is no room to
compromise? You've drawn the line in the sand and you are holding
your breath? That's unfortunate.
um ... no. what's unfortunate is your condescending attitude towards
folks who are pointing out that they *like* the concept of an
everything install. that would include folks like *me*, by the way.
does that mean you're going to insult me as well?
Some of us, are working with the maintainers to identify which
packages are not incorporated into the comps grouping structure
correctly so that the functionality of the install all button will
essentially be duplicate by selecting all displayed packages in all
displayed groups during the install process.
ah. in other words, you're *going* to support an "everything"
install, you're just going to make it way more inconvenient than it
used to be.
bravo. progress marches on.
rday