On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 22:39 +0300, peter kostov wrote: > On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 14:09 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, William Hooper wrote: > > > > > > > > Mike McCarty wrote: > > > > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> fair enough. but in that case, something should be tweaked to deal with > > > >> this since i would still contend that a fresh install should be able to > > > >> be "yum update"d without messing around with anything. > > > > > > > > It sounds like a request that the repositories be kept internally > > > > consistent, and packaged. I agree that one should be able to update an > > > > everything install right out of the box. > > > > > > I don't think holding a kernel update (for the "wide audience") > > > until the external modules (for the "narrow audience") are ready is > > > a good answer. A better answer would be to just install what you > > > need, that way you don't needlessly get tripped up by "narrow > > > audience" issues. By choosing an "Everything" install you choose to > > > get tripped up by _every_ packaging issue there is, whether you use > > > those packages or not. > > > > i don't buy that argument. i suspect many people do an "Everything" > > install simply because: > > > > 1) disk space is cheap, and > > > > 2) they're not sure exactly what they want so they'll just put it all > > in to play it safe. > > and > 3) they want to explore and learn linux (as me;) ---- then consider this lesson plan 101 on how to fix things when they don't work exactly as you might have expected them too. Sort of like the Microsoft Windows plan...install most everything, start the services and then let people figure out for themselves why things get broken and hacked. It does sort of defy the philosophy of only what is necessary - but those who are somewhat exposed to it will always choose less than more. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
