On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
there is nothing wrong in CentOS or Fedora
Of course, in the grand scheme of things, it's not a "problem". A "problem" is a crashing kernel or buggy drivers.
My opinion after this experience is that it'd help for CentOS to include system-config-network-tui as part of the base install. That is my honest opinion about this experience. It'd have saved me from some minor annoyance, albeit an annoyance nonetheless.
Just think the opposite: what would be the expense-damage of including it as part of the base install?. Would it:
1. Break the OS 2. Make things easier for people who end up in the same situation I did. 3. Affect the balance of the Universe. ;)
Your choice. I think 2.
FC
On Thursday, July 26, 2012 11:42:05 AM Fernando Cassia wrote:
My opinion after this experience is that it'd help for CentOS to include system-config-network-tui as part of the base install.
The question becomes "Does upstream include it in their upstream EL?" If the answer is yes, it will be included. If the answer is no, it will not be included, as a rule of thumb.
Just think the opposite: what would be the expense-damage of including it as part of the base install?. Would it:
- Break the OS
Yes. It would break the bug-for-bug, feature-for-feature, compatibility with upstream EL, which is one of the goals of CentOS.
On 07/26/2012 04:42 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
My opinion after this experience is that it'd help for CentOS to include system-config-network-tui as part of the base install.
Can you be a bit more specific about what you mean by a 'base install' ? Its not actually possible to get a minimalist @base only install without kickstarting the installer instance - at which point you might as well +<package> whatever you need.
Or perhaps you using the 'base' work more as a language thing to imply a minimalistic environ ?
-
Fernando Cassia -
Karanbir Singh -
Lamar Owen