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

Re: status of Progeny projects

Andreas Metzler wrote:
> I assume it was a lot easier to port RedHat's installer to Debian than
> it would have been to improve Debian installer _and_ write a X11
> frontend for it. If you throw "porting to all 11 supported
> architectures into the calculation the outcome might change.

I agree that it is sometimes easier to throw away other people's work
and start from scratch, ignoring the developers who spent time on
this.  However, in this case, it is blatantly ignoring the goal to (a)
release sarge soon and (b) finish the debian-installer

I also don't think you're entirely correct when talking about the X11
frontend.  See <http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2002/35/>:

   Graphical Installer? Michael Cardenas [36]released his patch to
   cdebconf that adds a gtk2.0 frontend. It still required a little
   bit of work but others finished it and Tollef Fog Heen already
   [37]committed it. This is an important step forward in the
   direction of a graphical installer for Debian.

   36. http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot-0209/msg00062.html
   37. http://lists.debian.org/debian-boot-0209/msg00082.html

Also, wasn't the goal of using debconf in d-i to be able to easily (!)
adapt a new frontend besides the preferred textual frontend?  Don't
tell me we failed this.



GNU does not eliminate all the world's problems, only some of them.
                                                -- The GNU Manifesto

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.

Reply to: