Re: points on future installation disks development
Andy Mortimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > * Would be able to provide alternative modules for different purposes
> > > (such as a simpler one for a brail interface?), with no recoding. This
> > > also makes the provision of an X-based install much more reasonable
> > > (although IIRC dinstall won't still be running by then?)
> > For the boot-floppies purpose we won't need any X interface.
> And there was I thinking X would go on the boot floppies. ;) I'm not sure
> that this is such an issue for dinstall, but depending on how it gets
> split up, some packages (modconf was the example I had in mind) would
> benefit from a `native' X-based display.
For modconf you are right. modconf needs a rewrite (probably in C)
anyway because it is too slow.
> > > Although its normal mode of operation is to dynamically load modules, it
> > > would be fairly painless to make a statically linked version (a metter of
> > > a couple of defines, in fact), which would also remove the need for libdb
> > > etc.
> > Right. I didn't stress that we have strict disk space
> > requirements. But replacing ncurses with slang should give us some
> > room.
> Assuming nothing else -- like cfdisk -- uses ncurses, of course ...
Currently we have a lowmem root and a normal root. On the lowmem root
fdisk is used instead of cfdisk. And Andries Brouwer's sfdisk still
doesn't have a curses-like frontend, so this might make another
Sven Rudolph <email@example.com> ; WWW : http://www.sax.de/~sr1/
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .