Re: Installation Profiles [was: Re: Reality check!]
john@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler) writes:
> In fact, I would not mind at all if emacs was optional.
>
Me neither actually. ;-)
> > IMHO it would be much wiser to provide a useful *minimum* in each
> > category upon which people can base their own choices.
>
> That is what I originally thought the profiles were for.
>
Obviously the profiles were meant to be actually this but i suppose
because of various complaints by people ("the most important <insert
your favorite program> is missing from the profiles and should
definitely go in or i'll switch to Redhat" ;) they have become rather
bloated over time. It would be nice from an independent party to
critically revise them in order to return to someting like "less is
more" or "small is beautiful".
> Might it be possible to include fewer packages in each profile and then
> present the user with a list of additional packages that might be of
> interest to them given that they have chosen this particular profile?
> Something like "You have installed the Scientific Workstation profile. The
> following additional packages may be of interest ..."
>
Wouldn't this approach rather complicate things even more? I think the
more complicated things become the less they are likely to actually be
implemented at all - unless someone really cares about such issues.
Cheers, P. *8^)
--
--------- Paul Seelig <pseelig@goofy.zdv.uni-mainz.de> -----------
African Music Archive - Institute for Ethnology and Africa Studies
Johannes Gutenberg-University - Forum 6 - 55099 Mainz/Germany
------------------- http://ntama.uni-mainz.de --------------------
Reply to: