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

Re: d-i steps order : why directly go into cfdisk?

Am Sam, den 01.11.2003 schrieb Sven Luther um 10:45:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 09:50:54AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Currently, the steps order looks like :
> > 
> > Language selection
> > Network hardware detection
> > Modules loading
> > ...
> > 
> > then partition hard disk (the good old cfdisk)
> > 
> > Going to main-menu first would be better, imho : this would allow
> > users to go to autopartkit if they wish to do so.
> The real solution would be to have a single harddisk partitioning menu
> entry, which would have many submenus : autopartitioning, partitioner,
> parted, cfdisk, ....
Partitioner calls parted or cfdisk. It just searches for hard-disks and
starts the appropiate partitioning programm for the particular
arch/subarch. If it does not start the correct program for you, you
should add or modify the script which starts the partitioning program in
> The next step would be partconf, which will also write the fstab, as
> discussed elsewhere.
not for autopartkit which also does format and mount partitions.
> Everything else is a less than satisfactory solution, but then nobody
> seems to care, i am busy with powerpc kernels right now, and nobody has
> confirmed that this is even possible (or not) with the current modular
> main menu approach.
So probably everyone is busy fixing bugs in the installer and nobody
cares to introduce new ones :-)
OK, I will try to answer this to my best knowledge:
It's not easily possible with the current design. You can not have
submenus in main-menu and because main-menu is just another debconf
question with priority medium it's only shown if the debconf priority is
medium or lower. Normal installations start at high and therefore do not
show main-menu unless there was an error.
So the short answer is: This is somehow a problem of the modularity of
debian-installer and it is not easy to fix it in a sane manner without
changing the design of the installer.


Reply to: