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

Re: Draft proposal for using full anaconda as the default Fedora download

Máirín Duffy (duffy fedoraproject org) said: 
> > It would require not insiginficant changes to comps. For example, we
> > offer 'Sound and Video' as a group checkbox. There's no good way to make
> > this checkbox do a reasonably sane thing depending on which of the other
> > checkboxes you checked (did you check GNOME? KDE? No desktop at all?)
> I'm kind of thinking, drop those checkboxes. You get the equivalent of
> the desktop live cd (the default offering) if you just click next next
> next. Instead of having the package group selection screen
> (http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/13/html-single/Installation_Quick_Start_Guide/images/pkgselection/pkg-group-details.png )
> you can select different 'add-on packs'. They would all assume a GNOME
> installation. Other desktops could be installed, but as 'add ons.' 

My engineering mind immediately goes to 'how would we implement this in
terms of the existing infrastructure of the comps file, kickstart files,
etc.', and is somewhat confused. We could have a lot of new groups, I
guess, that are structured in this way, but it means a lot of random
packages would no longer be selectable via tha UI. This could be both
good and bad.

Another idea would be to make all the groups we have either much more
general (the desktop group would include its sound apps, the KDE group
would include its sound apps, and we could drop the general group), or
much more focused (specific task groups, like 'office-suite', or
'imap server', or similar). We could then build up logical installation
classes or installation profiles that consist of combinations of these.
(This is what another product does, of course.)

> > This is a big advantage of the live media; it's not just curated for the
> > default offering, but gives a good method for any use case to design for
> > its offering.
> This is also a huge problem with the live media.... it proliferates the
> limiting notion that Fedora is a bucket o' packages rather than a
> platform to build upon.

Hm. Maybe it's me, but I think the current incarnation of the non-live
media (need a better nomenclature) reinforces this even worse, actually
giving the user a pile of options to select & deselect and break themselves
with. At least with the various live media, we get something that
theoretically has been curated and tested as a unit.

> > Stepping back for a sec, a lot of this would go back to actually designating
> > what the non-Live media is for. We've *never* done that, leading to it
> > essentially just being 'a set reasonably comparable to what was on the old
> > Red Hat Linux CD/DVD.'  I don't see how something with that mantra helps
> > with our usage cases/target audience, regardless of technical benefits.
> Which do you mean? The mantra that designating what non-live media is
> for doesn't help, or the mantra that the DVD is comparable to ye olde
> RHL doesn't help?

The latter. The non-live media has never had a real target other than the
bucket'o'packages idea, and therefore isn't really designed for anything


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