FC-4 -- unhappy experiences
mattdm at mattdm.org
Fri Jun 17 14:15:43 UTC 2005
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 03:05:55PM +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> I wonder if there is something basically wrong
> with the Anaconda development?
That's a little harsh. I'd have to say the basic answer is "no, there
isn't". But if you want to contribute, please do.
> >From the little I've seen of it,
> it seems to me excessively complicated,
> and also lacking in clear motivation.
It's complicated because it's a complicated task.
And I have no idea what you even mean by "lacking in clear motivation". The
motivation seems pretty clear to me: it's the Fedora Installer.
> Eg should the latest version of Anaconda work
> on any machine the previous version worked on?
> That doesn't seem to me an unreasonable aim.
It does to me. Eventually, really old hardware and weird situations have to
get dropped, or you get *more* excessive complication and cruft. You can't
have it both ways.
> I upgrade rather than install because I do not have great confidence
> that the installation will work.
> Eg no installation has worked on a SCSI only machine since Redhat-9.
Since I install on SCSI-only machines all the time, this is clearly not
> The worst problem with FC-4 was on a machine (Asus motherboard)
> with two SCSI disks and an IDE disk.
> The upgrade seemed to get completely confused about the IDE disk,
> which it could not find.
> I managed to complete the upgrade by using Knoppix
> to delete references to /dev/hda1 in /etc/fstab .
Deleting references made it work? That seems odd. Anyway, Anaconda is more
conservative with hardware probing than Knoppix is.
> The upgrade itself on an AMD Athlon64 machine went OK,
> but after it I get innumerable errors
> when trying to compile a virgin kernel.
> Eg "make xconfig" does not work because qtlib is not found.
This isn't an installer problem at all. This is a person-building-the-kernel
> The upgrade bombed out on a Sony Picturebook (C1VFK)
> while "Reading package information",
> with some kind of Python error.
Read the release notes.
> [Am I alone in feeling that Python brings up more errors
> than its predecessors, eg Perl ?]
Thank God anaconda isn't written in perl! Its predecessor was written in C,
and was a horrid code nightmare.
As for "brings up more errors", that's largely because Python provides
tracebacks with a lot of data, so it seems intimidating. It's not like the
errors wouldn't be there otherwise.
Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Current office temperature: 77 degrees Fahrenheit.
More information about the users