Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 15:54 -0500, Douglas McClendon wrote:
> Jeremy Katz wrote:
>> I think that some of the above will go a long way towards
>> look nicer which is going to make me more amenable to it. I still don't
>> necessarily _like_ it because I still think that it makes anaconda
>> depend a bit too much on a lot of the details; but I guess as long as it
>> can fall back cleanly in the absence of the bits, that just means a
>> larger testing matrix.
> I'm going to assume that that was a "yes I like what the code does, yes
> it will be applied"
I've been largely persuaded at least between your mails and markmc
twisting my arm a little yesterday ;)
Now, for me to try to give a little on your points-
I was thinking about what you said about "it makes anaconda depend a bit
too much on the details". Can you clarify that a bit? Specifically, I
can imagine one or two possible (but not entirely pretty) ways to change
the patch, so that it makes 0 change to anaconda, at the expense of
adding a fair amount of complexity to liveinst.sh. But I'm not sure
what your long-term vision of liveinst.sh is. I.e. do you foresee it
getting folded into anaconda at some point?