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

Re: (summary?) Re: [RFC] Support for using multiple CDs during installation



On Thursday 01 November 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
> If you're not on broadband and you choose to use a mirror, it takes
> half an hour or more just to download the Packages file. Apt can
> estimate this reaonably well so you shouldn't even need to wait, you can
> just see in the progress bar estimate that the network is slow[1]
> This is a good indication that you made the wrong choice -- installing
> any significant tasks will take much longer -- and all that's really
> needed then is a Cancel button so you can move on to using a CD instead.

OK. This is starting to make sense.

Say we extend apt-mirror-setup so that it can tell how fast the connection 
is (which is probably going to require some serious hacking).
We could then do the following.

A) If CD-based install and base-installable
   => ask user if he wants to use a mirror
- if Yes
  - select mirror
  - get packages file (with cancel option!?); determine speed
  - if speed ~= "fast broadband" or "local network"
    * use mirror, proceed to pkgsel
  - if speed ~= "slow broadband" and CD/DVD is first in set
    * offer to scan additional CD/DVDs (possibly not in case of DVD)
  - if speed ~< "broadband"
    * offer to select different mirror (go back to 'select mirror')
    * advice against using the mirror during installation
      (add commented out in sources.list?)
    * if CD/DVD is first in set => offer to scan additional CD/DVDs
- if No
  * if CD/DVD is first in set => offer to scan additional CD/DVDs

B) If not a CD-based install or not base-installable and speed ~< broadband,
   we could warn against selecting large tasks.

I would happily support a scheme like that.


Why don't we do the following?
As both Otavio, Christian and others seem to mostly agree with me, I commit 
and upload the changes as I have them now. I really don't think the current 
implementation can be seen as a "regression" in support for what Joey 
considers the "normal" case and it adds a feature that is obviously wanted.

We can then get some experience and feedback with Beta1.
If anybody wants to implement something like described above, or propose a 
different alternative, it can be discussed on the list. After all, we still 
have almost a year to Lenny to improve the "user experience".

Cheers,
FJP

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: