Regarding install options

[Casey Dahlin]

Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 00:10 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>   
>> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 01:45:47PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>     
>>> On Mon, 2008-10-13 at 22:32 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>>>       
>>>> I had a look recently, and I think that comps are in a good shape for
>>>> minimal installs. (there is an issue with anaconda deps being draggued 
>>>> in but it is an orthogonal issue). However chosing @core or @core +
>>>> @base is an unsolved (and unsolvable, in my opinion) issue.
>>>>         
>>> How so?  You uncheck everything to get @core, you uncheck everything but
>>> the Base group to get @core + @base
>>>       
>> It isn't what I meant, I meant it is unsolvable to tell whether minimal
>> is @core or @code + @base.
>>     
>
> Right, because "minimal" is defined in the eye of the installer, IE the
> person doing the installing.
>
>   
I've spent 3 days just trying to /find/ all the crap Anaconda put on a 
computer that I didn't check off. Now, when I install Fedora on a 
server, I reboot and start over if I see anything that looks even 
remotely desktop-related. This is a broken use case. Solutions are:

1) Add the "dependencies have been added" screen that every other 
package install tool in the distro has but Anaconda insists on going 
without.
2) Have checkboxes in the package screen be tri-state. (checked if you 
want it, unchecked if you don't want it, red x if yum is not allowed to 
install it for any reason). This one's not pretty, but it'd work.
3) Provide a default install. Believe me, I won't agree with what you 
put in it at all. I will, however, be happier than I am now.
4) Document the procedure a few emails up on how to install just @core 
or @core + @base . I didn't even know the system would run right if you 
unchecked everything.

Spending a little energy and not pleasing everyone is a lot better than 
spending no energy and epic failing.

--CJD