Re: We need easier installation.
Oh, and one more *wish* list idea is to be able to maintain packages on a
network from one computer. A master package program so-to-speak.
Maintain several workstations with identical installations, or vary the
installations from machine to machine.
On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Marc Singer wrote:
> And how. It is very inconvenient to have to go through the text-mode
> configuration question-and-answer interspersed with byte-code
> compilation and other time-consuming tasks.
>
> >
> > gimp: <descript>
> >
> > Application: Develop graphics for a variety of purposes, web pages, icons,
> > backgrounds, photo touch-up, etc
> > blah, blah, blah
>
> This could be addressed by clarifying package descriptions or by
> adding a new field
>
> purpose:
>
>
> > I know the first response is going to be: Ah! then we are like redhat.
> > But I think more of this depends on how well we implement it. If it is
> > done well, I think it will be a big boost to our usablity. How many times
> > have you installed a package, only to find out it wasn't what you thought
> > it would be like?
>
> What we care about is ease of use. If RedHat has some good ideas,
> let's use 'em.
>
> > I think having a million packages is awesome, I wouldn't want it any other
> > way. There is a use for every single one of those. I want more! But I
> > think in all reality, a way to sift through them would be beneficial to
> > the distribution.
>
> I think that the preconfigured sets are supposed to do this, but we
> need to have a better handle on these setups. It is very handy to be
> able to select a group of packages to install and to be able to
> reproduce this installation on other machines.
>
Reply to: