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

Re: PROPOSAL: automatic installation and configuration

Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@cs.unitn.it> writes:

> The advantage of my tool, or any similar solution, is that the changes
> are very small and limited only to the installation scripts. The only
> changes required are substituting code like this:
>     print message
>     print -n prompt; read answer
> with:
>     answer=$(dpkg-getconfig PKG_VARNAME --message message --prompt prompt)
> The installation script doesn't need to be aware that the value is read from
> a database, it just asks a question and gets an answer. But if the answer
> is asked directly to the user we can't get a chance to store or read it
> in a database, so the scripts must be changed.

Also a disadvantage.  You don't really have any namespaces defined, or
any heirarchy or method for shared configuration (i.e., ask for my
news server, unless it's already be ask for before).

However, I do prefer the small hack which actually implemented to the
ideal hack which has been debated for years and never implemented.

> If this change in policy would be approved it would take a few days or weeks
> to modify all the installation scripts.
> I would really prefer to have the next freeze delayed of a few weeks rather
> than having to make another totally manual mass installation.

This is totally naieve. There is no way we could have a complete
transition in 1999 -- period.  It's just not going to happen, mark my

I just hope we have some partial transition in 1999 (maybe "mostly
complete" for post-potato).

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

Reply to: