[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: rawhide report: 20050121 changes



On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 17:08 +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> ok just to be devils advocate again; how is having an iso labeled
> "Extras-KDE" different from having one additional iso in core that has
> the kde packages (I'm not sure if kde fills an entire CD but it'll go
> quite some way towards that anyway). In the first case you offer the
> user the choice to download it or *not* download it if the user isn't
> going to use KDE, in the case of KDE-in-core you force downloading that
> same ISO on all users, regardless of whether they will install KDE or
> not.

> Your argument seems to be "but then I have to download an extra iso"....
> well you download that iso anyway, and not just you but everyone else
> too.
> 

You're right, the ISO argument is flawed and Rahul pointed this out too.
And that's not really the argument I was trying to make, but I can see
how it comes across like that.

For the record, I have no problem with KDE being on a separate ISO, as
long as the installer gives one the choice of installing from said ISO
at install time.  In fact, I think a reorg of the ISOs could be a great
thing.

As I said in the email I just posted, my concern is more of a
maintainership issue of actually officially declaring it an Extras
package.  Maybe it's a non-issue, but I still have that concern.

josh


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]