Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   CentOS Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/centos-development/)
-   -   Centos server installation (http://www.linux-archive.org/centos-development/558317-centos-server-installation.html)

cephas kamuchira 07-29-2011 10:05 AM

Centos server installation
 
I am* just* suggesting a new opinion* on centos server.
*During the installation,* why cant you add a check or click all box to select all packages you are going to install when choosing packages or service you want to install in the server. i have to do the clicking on 1 at a time just to install like 300 or more packages.


Its just my sugestion

Thank you
--
Best Regards
*
Cephas Kamuchira

Linux System Administrator
PCworxshop/Foresite
www.pcworxshop.co.za
Pinetown
Durban
Kwa-Zulu Natal
South Africa


Cell: 071 980 4006
E-mail:cephokamuchira@gmail.com
********* cephas@foresite.co.za

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Karanbir Singh 08-02-2011 09:37 AM

Centos server installation
 
Hi,

On 07/29/2011 11:05 AM, cephas kamuchira wrote:
> I am just suggesting a new opinion on centos server.
> During the installation, why cant you add a check or click all box to
> select all packages you are going to install when choosing packages or
> service you want to install in the server. i have to do the clicking on
> 1 at a time just to install like 300 or more packages.

I suspect there is no reply to your email, since not many people were
able to completely understand your point. Are you saying that when a
group is selected, all rpms in that group ( mandatory and optional )
should be automatically selected ?

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Manuel Wolfshant 08-02-2011 09:43 AM

Centos server installation
 
On 08/02/2011 12:37 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/29/2011 11:05 AM, cephas kamuchira wrote:
>> I am just suggesting a new opinion on centos server.
>> During the installation, why cant you add a check or click all box to
>> select all packages you are going to install when choosing packages or
>> service you want to install in the server. i have to do the clicking on
>> 1 at a time just to install like 300 or more packages.
> I suspect there is no reply to your email, since not many people were
> able to completely understand your point. Are you saying that when a
> group is selected, all rpms in that group ( mandatory and optional )
> should be automatically selected ?
>
> - KB
Something like that, probably. An option to select/unselect all packages
did exist in the installer a long time ago.

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Roeland Mertens 08-02-2011 09:44 AM

Centos server installation
 
On 02/08/2011 10:37, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/29/2011 11:05 AM, cephas kamuchira wrote:
>> I am just suggesting a new opinion on centos server.
>> During the installation, why cant you add a check or click all box to
>> select all packages you are going to install when choosing packages or
>> service you want to install in the server. i have to do the clicking on
>> 1 at a time just to install like 300 or more packages.
> I suspect there is no reply to your email, since not many people were
> able to completely understand your point. Are you saying that when a
> group is selected, all rpms in that group ( mandatory and optional )
> should be automatically selected ?
>
I am assuming that he means to suggest a button to "select all" in a group.
Right now on certain groups when you select them for installation will
only install for example 11/93,
I think he means to add a button that allows him to add the other 82 in
a single click.

rgds,

Roeland
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

夜神 岩男 08-02-2011 03:28 PM

Centos server installation
 
On 08/02/2011 06:44 PM, Roeland Mertens wrote:
> On 02/08/2011 10:37, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 07/29/2011 11:05 AM, cephas kamuchira wrote:
>>> I am just suggesting a new opinion on centos server.
>>> During the installation, why cant you add a check or click all box to
>>> select all packages you are going to install when choosing packages or
>>> service you want to install in the server. i have to do the clicking on
>>> 1 at a time just to install like 300 or more packages.
>> I suspect there is no reply to your email, since not many people were
>> able to completely understand your point. Are you saying that when a
>> group is selected, all rpms in that group ( mandatory and optional )
>> should be automatically selected ?
>>
> I am assuming that he means to suggest a button to "select all" in a group.
> Right now on certain groups when you select them for installation will
> only install for example 11/93,
> I think he means to add a button that allows him to add the other 82 in
> a single click.

We had this discussion in Fedora-land a while back. There are pretty
solid reasons why this was removed in Fedora and later RHEL as an option
(the FESCo logs of it are around somewhere, as are a few blogs detailing
this after the fact).

Installing *everything* is not normal use and can cause weird things to
happen (depending on use -- for example when alternatives install next
to or over defaults and admins often don't realize this is happening,
particularly with sendmail/postfix or 389-DS/OpenLDAP).

...and for people who *really* want to do this, 'yum install"*"' works
just fine and lets you know a lot more than Anaconda does. The quotes
around the * are necessary. This can be placed in a kickstart script or
a firstrun hack but neither tier of upstream consider it a good idea to
tempt the average person installing a system with such a nuclear option
before they've even seen the system defaults working the way they were
designed...

Anyway, wouldn't this break "binary compatibility with upstream"?

Just my $20

-Iwao
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Les Mikesell 08-02-2011 04:01 PM

Centos server installation
 
On 8/2/2011 10:28 AM, 夜神 岩男 wrote:
>
>> I am assuming that he means to suggest a button to "select all" in a group.
>> Right now on certain groups when you select them for installation will
>> only install for example 11/93,
>> I think he means to add a button that allows him to add the other 82 in
>> a single click.
>
> We had this discussion in Fedora-land a while back. There are pretty
> solid reasons why this was removed in Fedora and later RHEL as an option
> (the FESCo logs of it are around somewhere, as are a few blogs detailing
> this after the fact).
>
> Installing *everything* is not normal use and can cause weird things to
> happen (depending on use -- for example when alternatives install next
> to or over defaults and admins often don't realize this is happening,
> particularly with sendmail/postfix or 389-DS/OpenLDAP).

It would be nice if someone who chose the available packages and has at
least some understanding of them would also provide an 'everything'
choice that is a set of all the package that won't cause weird things to
happen. Disk space is cheap and it is much easier to explore/test
programs when they are installed than by reading the itty-bitty blurb
that 'yum info' gives. Was there anyone in the fedora-land discussion
who thought an end user would really be able to select packages
sight-unseen better than the people who made the choice of packages to
be included in the distro?

> ...and for people who *really* want to do this, 'yum install"*"' works
> just fine and lets you know a lot more than Anaconda does. The quotes
> around the * are necessary. This can be placed in a kickstart script or
> a firstrun hack but neither tier of upstream consider it a good idea to
> tempt the average person installing a system with such a nuclear option
> before they've even seen the system defaults working the way they were
> designed...
>
> Anyway, wouldn't this break "binary compatibility with upstream"?

Agreed - it is something that upstream should provide too. Or at least
a yum group or list of packages in a form that yum would understand to
install them later.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Karanbir Singh 08-02-2011 04:19 PM

Centos server installation
 
On 08/02/2011 05:01 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Anyway, wouldn't this break "binary compatibility with upstream"?
>
> Agreed - it is something that upstream should provide too. Or at least
> a yum group or list of packages in a form that yum would understand to
> install them later.
>

So the interesting thing about that is - that no, it wont break upstream
compatibility; since the groups that are put in are done by us -
remember that upstream has varients that we dont, and their process and
policy around those varients depends on various non technical factors (
eg. how much money you paid for the subscription that in turn got you
the install media ).

Lets say, its a bit of a grey area - we *could* have that as an option
if people *really* wanted it. I suspect a yum install * in the %post of
a ks.cfg would achieve about the same result.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

夜神 岩男 08-02-2011 04:25 PM

Centos server installation
 
On 08/03/2011 01:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 8/2/2011 10:28 AM, 夜神 岩男 wrote:
>>
>>> I am assuming that he means to suggest a button to "select all" in a group.
>>> Right now on certain groups when you select them for installation will
>>> only install for example 11/93,
>>> I think he means to add a button that allows him to add the other 82 in
>>> a single click.
>>
>> We had this discussion in Fedora-land a while back. There are pretty
>> solid reasons why this was removed in Fedora and later RHEL as an option
>> (the FESCo logs of it are around somewhere, as are a few blogs detailing
>> this after the fact).
>>
>> Installing *everything* is not normal use and can cause weird things to
>> happen (depending on use -- for example when alternatives install next
>> to or over defaults and admins often don't realize this is happening,
>> particularly with sendmail/postfix or 389-DS/OpenLDAP).
>
> It would be nice if someone who chose the available packages and has at
> least some understanding of them would also provide an 'everything'
> choice that is a set of all the package that won't cause weird things to
> happen. Disk space is cheap and it is much easier to explore/test
> programs when they are installed than by reading the itty-bitty blurb
> that 'yum info' gives. Was there anyone in the fedora-land discussion
> who thought an end user would really be able to select packages
> sight-unseen better than the people who made the choice of packages to
> be included in the distro?
>
>> ...and for people who *really* want to do this, 'yum install"*"' works
>> just fine and lets you know a lot more than Anaconda does. The quotes
>> around the * are necessary. This can be placed in a kickstart script or
>> a firstrun hack but neither tier of upstream consider it a good idea to
>> tempt the average person installing a system with such a nuclear option
>> before they've even seen the system defaults working the way they were
>> designed...
>>
>> Anyway, wouldn't this break "binary compatibility with upstream"?
>
> Agreed - it is something that upstream should provide too. Or at least
> a yum group or list of packages in a form that yum would understand to
> install them later.

This was discussed, exactly the way you are stating things on one side
"wouldn't it be nice if..." VS "the uninformed are the majority who
choose the 'everything' option and when things break they assume the
whole distro sucks and ditch it" on the other.

Which would you prefer be the newcomer impression of CentOS? A system
that works well with adequate defaults but that can be explored to the
heart's content (which entails research -- on any OS -- how many people
do "everything" AIX installs -- they either don't do them or receive AIX
package selections that are strict defaults with nothing further
vendor-provided?) or one that gets overloaded with conflicts and breaks
because too many conflicts are installed and things that are supposed to
be simple, like starting or stopping slapd, become complex in ways
unknowable to the user?

In short:

The chance that a knowledgable system administrator is going to be able
to research how packages interact in a desired setup...

...is a lot higher than...

...the chances that the average person who is prone to click
"everything" will know how to manage the situation he's put himself in.

This *was* a feature in the past and was removed for a reason. You can
head back to FESCo and re-argue it, but I found the case for removal
compelling, particularly with the 'yum install "*"' option available for
those who know what they are doing -- and that begins with understanding
why the "s are necessary in the command.

This was a revealing threshold, as it turned out once the feature was
removed -- most of the complaints/questions on the users@fp.o list about
removal were from people who really didn't know what quotes do in
bash... which sort of validated the whole debate in favor of removal
after the fact. This was the precise demographic that had no business
clicking "everything" and was the only group clamoring for the
reinstatement of @everything.

As far as package preselects or package groups that are known to work
well together, Anaconda is replete with them. A cut down of an
@everything option winds up being a lot closer to a spin than an
installation option, and that is where those things have drifted to
(Well, more in Fedora land than CentOS land. Most CentOS folks tend to
just use the distro and not develop spins.).

There is history behind this decision. Of course, CentOS is not
upstream, so it could go its own way, but I think thoughtful
contemplation of the issue at hand (making a dangerous edgecase widely
available on an enterprise-level system) they will likely stick with the
status quo.

-Iwao
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

夜神 岩男 08-02-2011 04:29 PM

Centos server installation
 
On 08/03/2011 01:19 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 05:01 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Anyway, wouldn't this break "binary compatibility with upstream"?
>>
>> Agreed - it is something that upstream should provide too. Or at least
>> a yum group or list of packages in a form that yum would understand to
>> install them later.
>>
>
> So the interesting thing about that is - that no, it wont break upstream
> compatibility; since the groups that are put in are done by us -
> remember that upstream has varients that we dont, and their process and
> policy around those varients depends on various non technical factors (
> eg. how much money you paid for the subscription that in turn got you
> the install media ).
>
> Lets say, its a bit of a grey area - we *could* have that as an option
> if people *really* wanted it. I suspect a yum install * in the %post of
> a ks.cfg would achieve about the same result.

And this was the route opted for. The folks who understand how to do
that are the ones who are safest doing it. Sort of like putting a
child-lock on the brain-eating entropy machine that a system this large
and diverse can become.

-Iwao
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Ljubomir Ljubojevic 08-02-2011 04:32 PM

Centos server installation
 
Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 08/02/2011 05:01 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Anyway, wouldn't this break "binary compatibility with upstream"?
>> Agreed - it is something that upstream should provide too. Or at least
>> a yum group or list of packages in a form that yum would understand to
>> install them later.
>>
>
> So the interesting thing about that is - that no, it wont break upstream
> compatibility; since the groups that are put in are done by us -
> remember that upstream has varients that we dont, and their process and
> policy around those varients depends on various non technical factors (
> eg. how much money you paid for the subscription that in turn got you
> the install media ).
>
Is it possible to create yum groups that overlap with other groups? So
we/they/whoever could add several selected groups. This means that one
package could be in several groups.

--

Ljubomir Ljubojevic
(Love is in the Air)
PL Computers
Serbia, Europe

Google is the Mother, Google is the Father, and traceroute is your
trusty Spiderman...
StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:19 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.