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

Re: Debconf or not debconf : Conclusion



On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 03:24:57PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:28:33PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Yet another reasons for wanting to decouple installation and
> > > configuration is if some hardware company (such as VA^H^H Emperor
> > > Linux) wishes to ship Debian pre-installed on the system.  In that
> > > case, installation happens at the factory, and not when the user
> > > receives it in his/her hot little hands.
> > Given the number of config questions today that have to do with
> > available hardware, I have a hard time believing that a strict split
> > between installation and configuration tasks really addresses the needs
> > of such vendors.  It also seems that all of the above are achievable
> > within the framework debconf currently provides 

> You've just contradicted yourself.

> If it's possible to achieve all of the above within the framework debconf
> currently provides, then a strict split between installation (preinst,
> unpack and postinst) and configuratin (config and templates) really
> addresses the needs of such vendors. If, on the other hand, it doesn't,
> then it's not.

Sorry, "all of the above" was meant to refer to the three different
modes of invoking the dpkg-configure command.  I believe it's possible
to provide such a split today using debconf, but I don't believe this
split addresses the needs of vendors trying to provide pre-installed
systems.


-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgph4o5sGlWTV.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: