On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 01:52:20PM -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: >As the latest installment in the recent series of major "D'oh!"s, I >realized that the installation profiles I previously proposed for setup >could be initially implemented as special packages with the right >dependences. This still doesn't absolve us from adding some more >sophisticated support for these in setup (e.g., communicating the user >prerefence about creating desktop icons to them), but it's a start, and >it'll cut down on the "I installed Cygwin, so how come gcc doesn't work" >(and the much more annoying "just install everything, it's only 2 gigs" >answers to those). > >IMO, these packages should be in a special new category (I propose the >name "@Profiles" to make setup put this at the top, but I don't know if >setup will parse this correctly). I've attached a few sample profile >packages for commonly requested configurations with the corresponding >setup.hints. We could probably concentrate them all in one directory >(thus the '@ ...' lines at the top of the hint files). All the .tar.bz2 >files are the same empty tarball -- it's the setup.hints that are >important. > >Comments and other suggestions welcome. Note that the attached packages >are an initial cut at defining those profiles -- I'm bound to have missed >something. Also, I'm not proposing to maintain *all* of the profiles, >though I could maintain the ones I've attached, as there isn't too much >work involved.
Assuming that Corinna agrees, I'm willing to put these in a directory in release. I'd like to get some consensus on the name "Profiles", though. Is that adequately intuitive? cgf
