[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#357188: Package: installation-reports

Quoting Ralph Amissah (ralph.amissah@gmail.com):
> Written in response to "After using the Debian-Installer, please send
> us an installation report, even if there weren't any problems." the
> feedback link is to
> http://d-i.alioth.debian.org/manual/en.i386/ch05s03.html#submit-bug
> the suggestion and link found on
> http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/
> Following that suggestion it was more general than a bug report, and
> more like user feedback. Bug report may indeed not be the right place
> for this type of feedback. If such feedback is desired, perhaps this
> link/suggestion should be to updated to suggest some place different.
> If such feedback is a waste of time, perhaps the suggestion should be
> removed.

Not exactly. We (d-i team) have however to sort out things that are
directly relevant to the installer software itself from stuff related
to packages that aren't under our control.

This is why issues related to these package can benefit from being
reported to the relevant packages directly as experience shows that
the manpower in the d-i team is not enough to properly process and
understand all reported issues when they obviously do no pertain to
our work.

> > > * Humbly suggest, the program "screen" should be part of the default
> > > installation for those who use it.
> >
> > This should be reported against the "screen" package but honestly I
> > see no reason for it.
> >
> oh, does this mean that screen is available... i recall typing screen
> -a in a console and not finding it, perhaps i am mistaken.

screen is not in the default install. But controlling whether it
should be or not is not under the instalelr team control...it is in
the hands of the screen package maintainer. This is what I wanted to point.

I however doubt it will be considered as part of a default
install..but this is purely personal opinion, here.

> > > * I forget the selections, "standard", "laptop" and "desktop" used and
> > > work fine, bringing up xorg (and installing gnome desktop)
> > > "standard" + "laptop" appears to install xorg, but is not configured
> > > to work as easily when a display manager and alternative window
> > > manager is to be installed.
> >
> >
> > I don't understand the point here.....
> >
> >
> Question, if X11 is installed for the "standard installation" without
> the "desktop" installation, is it not possible to have xorg configured
> so that it works in pretty much the same way, and all you would need
> to do is install a display and window manager to have the distro
> working with X, I mean the setting are configured correctly when you
> choose to install gnome, (and X11 seems to be installed without the
> need to install the gnome desktop). I have not explored, what is
> expected of the standard installation without "desktop". I thought
> this would be a convenient state to have the installation in, if it
> was not incompatible with intent.

Standard installation without "desktop" does not include X at
all. There is no such task as "minimal X-Window system" actually.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: