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

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.


    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: