Re: PROPOSAL: automatic installation and configuration
Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@cs.unitn.it> writes:
> The advantage of my tool, or any similar solution, is that the changes
> are very small and limited only to the installation scripts. The only
> changes required are substituting code like this:
>
> print message
> print -n prompt; read answer
>
> with:
>
> answer=$(dpkg-getconfig PKG_VARNAME --message message --prompt prompt)
>
> The installation script doesn't need to be aware that the value is read from
> a database, it just asks a question and gets an answer. But if the answer
> is asked directly to the user we can't get a chance to store or read it
> in a database, so the scripts must be changed.
Also a disadvantage. You don't really have any namespaces defined, or
any heirarchy or method for shared configuration (i.e., ask for my
news server, unless it's already be ask for before).
However, I do prefer the small hack which actually implemented to the
ideal hack which has been debated for years and never implemented.
> If this change in policy would be approved it would take a few days or weeks
> to modify all the installation scripts.
[...]
> I would really prefer to have the next freeze delayed of a few weeks rather
> than having to make another totally manual mass installation.
This is totally naieve. There is no way we could have a complete
transition in 1999 -- period. It's just not going to happen, mark my
words.
I just hope we have some partial transition in 1999 (maybe "mostly
complete" for post-potato).
--
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Reply to: