William Hooper wrote:
Robin Laing wrote:
William Hooper wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, 2005-10-27 at 11:23, William Hooper wrote:
And how many people want to test these ISO sets bi-weekly to make
sure no bugs have creeped in?
Won't the same bugs be installed from the same RPMs whether yum pulls
them in slowly over the network or anaconda installs then from an
ISO?
Bugs in the RPM packages yes, bugs in the install environment, no.
Why do you think there are 3 test ISO sets before each release? That
way the installer environment gets tested.
The install environment wouldn't change. It would still have the same
packages as the original installer did. This would only change if for some
reason a package was split.
If the install environment won't change, then you can't use an updated
kernel or X during the install, let alone an updated version of Anaconda.
That means most (if not all) of the install bugs won't be fixed. What was
the point of creating new ISOs again?
My knowledge of anaconda is about zero. I assumed when I responded
that anaconda would look at package x and install it if selected. Now
if that isn't the case then my answer is wrong. I assumed that the
installer would look at a database of packages and then build from
that. It didn't care what revision or epoc but that the package was
available.
But the installer then should be changed to work in a way that it
does not require such defined packages.
Is it really a big deal to convert the packages within an ISO from x.1
to x.2?
Why cannot it say select package kernel and install the latest kernel.
kernel-2.6.12-1.1456_FC4 last month.
kernel-2.6.13-1.1526_FC4 this month.
kernel-2.6.13-1.1532_FC4 next month.
--
Robin Laing
