[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: diskles-image-*

>Hi, just got back from vacation.
>Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>> Ideally, base packages themselves should all support debconf.
>> However, that is not yet so.  I am conflicted whether we should try to
>> take at least the postinstallation tasks and debconf-tiny'ify them,
>> and try to either:
>>   (a) get the upstream base pkg maintainers to add the scripts
>>       (probably not possible)
>It's worth dropping a patch their way.

Yup. The less boot-floppies is responsible for, the better, that is,
assuming we get what we need...

>>   (b) make a new little package, base-config which has all this stuff,
>> then you cuold do 'dpkg-reconfigure base-config' or some such
>>   (c) just have the scripts be part of the boot-floppies themselves
>This is less than ideal because you cannot reconfigure, etc.

Well, you could combine (b) and (c), building another little
arch-indep binary pkg from the same boot-floppies sources.  Or if you
wanna do it on your own or outta the debconf-tiny sources or whatever,
that's fine.

>I'd like to step forward and do some work on this. I understand that
>Randolph has finally gotten debconf-tiny into the base tarball, so this is
>practical now.

Actually I had to yank it at the last minute.  I'll put it back in and
burn 2.2.5 once the Perl stuff is fixed.

> I'd limit myself to the set of questions that it asks on the
>initial reboot before entering task selection.

*Exactly* -- i.e., creating a root account, optionally creating a user
account, turn on shadow or not, removing PCMCIA if not needed or not.
I'd also want to add the apt-configurator step, then the tasksel step,
and then the xviddetect step.

I'd love to work closely with you to get all this in.  All the logic
is already there, we just gotta port it to debconf and stitch it
together in the right order.  It's this last 10% of work which will
make installation feel *so* much nicer for users.

.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>

Reply to: