On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 04:42:39PM -0700, Mike Cisar wrote:
> cd's before starting) a package has been unable to be installed. At least
> by giving the option of skipping the package (and presenting a list of any
> packages skipped at the end of the install) it would make it trivial (in
> most cases) to install that missing package after the fact. If I
> understand correctly, although the installer calculates the dependancies
> prior to starting the install, the actual RPM transaction is done with no
> dependencies so the install of the remaining packages could complete
> without any dependency errors from rpm.
And leaving you gambling that your final system actually works. Many times
dependencies are actually needed by as part of the installation process for
later packages. Other times, something which appears insignificant may
actually be part of a complicated chain on which vital components depend.
Do you really want to do tech support for someone who decided that it wasn't
important to install some little thing called "sed" ("who edits _streams_?
not me!")? :)
> I think in the long run a skip option, under *most* circumstances, would
> save *most* people a considerable amount of time in recovering from an
> install glitch.
Maybe. I understand your point (the one I've snipped out, above. heh.)
But I _strongly_ believe that the installer _always_ needs to install a
coherent set of packages or fail. That means the dependency calculation
needs to be redone when you hit the proposed "skip" button, and nothing
broken installed.
I think a better option is to provide other ways to find the problematic
package -- perhaps even switching to network mode if possible. At the very
least, you can switch to a non-broken CD, right?
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
