Am 14.11.2021 um 03:33 schrieb Chris Murphy
<lists(a)colorremedies.com>:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 7:12 PM Peter Boy <pboy(a)uni-bremen.de> wrote:
>
>
>
>> Am 13.11.2021 um 23:23 schrieb Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 07:30:34AM +0100, Peter Boy wrote:
>>>> But with netinstaller, it's correct. But how the heck is it
different?
>>>
>>> That is exactly what our issue #32 / #48 is about. See my previous post for
details.
>>>
>>> So let’s focus on resolving that (really important) issue and the nano
thingee is also solved.
>>
>> For what it's worth, I may have "fixed" this incidentally in
Rawhide,
>> because I changed "Recommends: vim-minimal" to "Recommends:
nano". (I also
>> changed the editor default from `/bin/vi` to searching through nano, vim,
>> and vi in that order.
>
>
> For sure, this does not fix the core problem, but only adds another patchwork of
quick and dirty fixes. Those are known to generate their own problems and in particular
getting in the way of solving the core problem and create additional work.
What is the core problem?
Sorry if I'm a tad annoyed. "Those who can read have a clear advantage“. Please,
just some 10 lines up, should not be so complicated and burdensome, and read with some
sense! And follow the references.
> And I think it would be fatal to make single changes without
consulting the WG and especially without an explicit review by those of us who have worked
out the perfect functioning of the server distribution so far and take responsibility for
it.
>
> And who will do the work when problems by such single actions do indeed unexpectedly
arise?
>
> Unfortunately, we have no shortage of people who propagate alleged improvements, but
fade away when it comes to action.
Well, Fedora-Server-dvd-x86_64-Rawhide-20211113.n.0.iso still doesn't
have nano. Seeing as the Server WG still doesn't have an explanation
for that, it seems weird to criticize attempts to fix it.
Sorry, to put it bluntly, you are wasting other people's valuable time. Before you
make unsubstantiated claims here, please do make yourself knowledgeable. You've been
around a long time enough to know this principle. Server WG knows since April exactly what
the cause is. This has been discussed repeatedly in all openness and for all to read. And
there is a plan how to correct it. And as I said in my previous email, unfortunately, too
many are great on talking, but disappear when it comes to implementation and thus work. At
this, already the 1st step of the plan was delayed. And I just started a process to
systematically restart the work on the plan.
What you refer to as a fix is not a fix, but in fact the introduction of a potential new
bug - albeit certainly with the best of intentions.
Sorry, no offense intended, but we desperately need a more careful and considerate
approach.