Description of problem: Feature Request: Anaconda is unable to display dependencies when installing Fedora with custom checked or unchecked packages. This would be very helpful. I would like to see something like the Mandriva installer displays what packages are needed/erased in case of checking/unchecking packages at the installation. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Anacondo (no specific version) How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. install a custom Fedora with anaconda 2. 3. Actual results: unchecked packages appear because of dependencies Expected results: when unchecking packages at the installation display a message of what packages will be affected to be erased in this case Additional info: I believe the installer of Mandriva Linux shows messages of what packages will be erased when removing a package from the standard installation. Something like this would be great.
Even a simple (flat) list would suffice, yes this feature would be really nice to have.
Computing this on the fly (which is required, given the fact that you can add repos including updates, etc) is extremely expensive and would introduce a lot of lag. Not to mention it's terrible UI design.
Ok, I'm really shocked to see WONT_FIX for a small feature request this soon, but I cannot say it was not expected (I guess that's the general attitude here). However I do not believe that the above reasons are enough to justify that resolution. First of all, even if the option would be "slow", you could always make it "optional" (i.e: shown only when requested by clicking a button). Additionally, YUM already needs to build this information, anyway. (It will install those dependencies, right?) I know, because command line YUM already does that (e.g: Installing 10 new packages [y/N]: ). Pirut that that too. It shall not be that difficult to display a list of strings on the screen organized as a tree via GTK+ (yet I'm no GTK+ programmer) Finally, several other distributions already does that. So we know it can be done. Please reopen the bug as LOW / CONFIRMED or similar, so that someone with enough time could implemented it.