Re: Which task package installs gpm?
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael S Fischer <michael@dynamine.net> writes:
Michael> On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 12:23:19AM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
>> IMO debian already has a system pretty darn close to kickstart, with
>> the above commands i can clone a system at *any* time, not just when
>> installing. with kickstart you can only create the kickstart file at
>> install time (AFAIK anyway) and redhat installers are notorious for
>> ignoring your package selections and installing whatever it feels like.
>> so your still stuck going through packages and removing crap anyway.
Michael> I strongly disagree with this assertion. You may clone a system's
Michael> package inventory this way, but in doing so you will not clone the
Michael> actual system configuration.
Right.
Michael> In addition, this process requires manual user intervention. Show me
Michael> a process that approaches the speed of kickstart (which to me is the
Michael> most important factor of all) and then we can talk.
It would need at least some manual setup; preconfiguration, no matter
what, right?
>> this a way to export debconf answers and your pretty much set. (i
>> don't know what kickstart does about things like networking)
Michael> I think that relying on debconf as a catch-all tool for system
Michael> configuration is a bad idea. The realm of configuration possibilities
Michael> is just too large for us to rely on package maintainers to make an
Michael> absolutely perfect configuration tool in every single package.
It would be a major project to write `debconf' support for even just
the core packages, I guess.
It would be neat if all software had a common interface for
configuration. If it was all consolidated into one database; or a
distributed database as for the `debconf' proposal... and an "API"
defined for accessing it. All of the daemons and everything would
need to be patched to take advantage of it. This would be a Linux
community wide project, not just a Debian one. Like a `registry' for
Linux, but improve on Microsoft's design, I suppose.
Would it work well using LDAP, an SQL server, or would writing its
own database setup be best?
Reply to: