kaboom at gatech.edu
Thu Jul 31 11:16:09 UTC 2003
On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 11:11, Michael K. Johnson wrote:
> > Basically, the default answer is "don't fiddle". It's only done in
> > cases where there's a very strong reason. An "update" has never had
> > the requirement of producing the same effect as an "install" in Red
> > Hat Linux -- besides the fact that it is practically impossible to
> > achieve in practice, it's not necessarily what people want. We aim
> > for "functional with packages updated" and not automagically pulling
> > in rhgb on upgrade is inline with that policy.
> I'm not sure I'd agree with this - OK, I'd agree that hard-coding
> fiddling in anaconda is evil - but I think making sure that rhgb
> gets installed for an upgrade of a workstation install of RH 9
> is very much in line with what we've tried to do in the past.
> Sometimes this involves hard-coding things in anaconda, in other
> cases we've added extra package dependencies just to make sure
> that things get pulled in.
> But the goal is certainly that if you take a workstation install,
> upgrade it to a newer version, you get the main workstation
> features of the newer version.
I think I disagree. People running RHL 9 or older without graphical boot
have obviously managed to function without it, so there's no compelling need
to go through the hoops of getting it added on an upgrade.... Those who want
the frosting can add it themselves, since it's not like rhgb is actually
adding any new functionality and therefore is potentially worth hard-coding
More information about the test