Re: package configuration design
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd@earthlink.net> wrote:
> My thoughts were more along the lines of linuxconf but more modular..
> Yours seem to me more along the lines of a registry ala windoze.. How
> do you propose to deal with the shortcomings of that system?
The windows registry only has name/values, this could easily include the
prompts as well. The windows registry is designed to make it impossible
to edit without a special tool, this wouldn't have to be. The windows
registry doesn't have an associated tool for direct entry of data, it
relies on "object oriented" code to stuff approprate values in (so in
this respect, it's more like linuxconf than like Wichert's system).
[I say "object oriented" in quotes because often the only feature that
makes the code "object oriented" is that it has data hard-coded into
the program "object". Then again, I'm showing my bias: I love object
oriented design techniques, but I despise most of what I've seen of
object-oriented implementation.]
A more telling difference is scope. The Windows registry is central,
damage it and you've made it so your system can't run. Linuxconf is
more distributed -- for the most part, it just populates existing
configuration files. The config information gleaned using prompts in
dpkg scripts is rather more minimal than either of these.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: