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?
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.
--
Chris Murphy