Yes, I remember :) regards, erik On Friday 27 January 2006 10:46, Aaron Mulder wrote: > I would prefer if we did not let a user install both web containers. :) > > I'd like to try out the installer soon. > > Thanks, > Aaron > > On 1/27/06, Erik Daughtrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ah, I knew that you'd asked for this, but I didn't realize that you had a > > strong conviction. I suppose I should've asked ;) > > > > I'll leave it alone for now and focus on cleaning up a few things left. > > > > It would be great if a few others could try the installer and provide > > some feedback quickly. > > > > Feedback is welcome. Thanks. > > > > regards, > > > > Erik > > > > On Friday 27 January 2006 10:19, David Jencks wrote: > > > On Jan 27, 2006, at 5:54 AM, Erik Daughtrey wrote: > > > > Given the comments I've gotten, I'm going to change the installer > > > > and go back > > > > to the behavior where it does not allow the selection of both web > > > > container > > > > packs to install. I'm going to ditch the additional buttons which > > > > allow > > > > selected features to be inactive at runtime. > > > > > > > > We could put this up for a vote, but since there have been very few > > > > comments > > > > on this topic, I assume that most folks just want an installer that > > > > works > > > > well. > > > > > > I pretty much strongly prefer the way the installer works now, I > > > think I asked for it to be this way :-) > > > > > > I won't stand in anyones way though. > > > > > > My view is that the installer should present all the options > > > reasonably available. They are MUCH easier to configure in the > > > installer than in any other way, and I think that the additional > > > confusion while using the installer is minimal. > > > > > > thanks > > > david jencks
-- Regards, Erik
