Re: Opinion about sarge install
Andrew Pollock wrote:
On Sun, Aug 08, 2004 at 03:01:45PM -0300, email@example.com wrote:
Just some opinion about the sarge install process. I installed a july daily
build(I can't remember the exact one, but i think it was 25) on my computer
that has just the very common hardware(i386 arch) with the 2.6 kernel. I
consider myself a getting-to-intemediate-level user and here's some things you
might consider (or not :P):
1)X configuration should be more automatic. I couldn't get the x server to work
on the first try. So I just did some copy and paste for the config file I
backedup from my old Mandrake distro I replaced with debian. If Mandrake can,
why can't debian get the configuration right with not much user intervention
and technical knowledge? These would make things much easier;
It would probably be interesting and useful for the X packaging team to see
a diff between the config that was generated from configuring X and the
config you ultimately had to use to get X working. In my experience,
provided you give the X configuration the right input, it does a reasonable
job of getting X working.
I have a DDC2-compliant Sun monitor on my peecee. I've not yet tried d-i
on it, but there are no questions It should have to ask.
2) I select the desktop package collection and then later when I was trying to
install some software I found out make, gcc and other tools were not installed.
I think these tools should be installed on any install because unfortunetelly
not everything come on .deb packages from a organized repository;
This is a matter of opinion. Not everyone wants a compiler installed by
default. Firewalls don't need a compiler. If you want to build stuff,
apt-get install build-essential. Whether the desktop task should install
build-essential is debateable. I'm inclined to think there should be a
"Development" task that installs at least build-essential packages...
I think a software developer task is a fine idea. If you can tune for
specialisations - GNOME developers probably don't want KDE libraries,
Kernel or httpd hackers might not evne want a desktop, let alone KDE and
GNOME libraies -then so much the better.
3) It should be a way to find out what's the best mirror. I had to try I few
until I found that was acceptably fast.
Well that's going to vary from person to person. I'm not sure how something
like apt-spy can be integrated with the mirror selection process.
For me the best mirror is the one that doesn't cost me. I don't care
about speed, prixiity measured in dollars is all that matters.
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/