Subject: re: System configuration utility
To: David Forbes <email@example.com>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 09/27/1998 10:42:29
>Well, okay, I'll use curses then - I hadn't realised this was the case
>until you pointed it out. I haven't used either before, and I haven't
>started writing the UI yet (although I've designed it), so it doesn't make
>much difference at the moment.
Don't give up on ncurses yet, just don't assume it'll be there:).
>Well, it's currently designed to run after the bulk of an installation has
>been done. I'm a little unclear as to how sysinst works, because I'm
>using an arm32 machine and I get the impression that the installation uses
>a different tool? (Can anyone clarify this for me?)
-current sysinst has an arch/arm32 directory, tho' it may not be in
1.3.2. I'd assume arm32 ports would use sysinst in the next full
>Certainly it will take it's defaults from any existing configuration.
There's been a lot of developer interest in turning the "base" sets
into something more pkg-like, and turning "sysinst" into a tool that
can handle more configuration setup. that menas running (portions) of
sysinst on a live system.
I guess I'd sooner see one tool and one UI for configuring /etc/*
files rather than two, which is the path you seem to be following.
(OTOH, glomming a kernel-config tool into a bootfloppy thats short
for space doesnt seem like a good choice.)
Also, sysinst goes to some pain to support internationalization. How
much it's been used I don't know, but the machinery is all there.
>> Also, the kernel-config tool sounds like it has a lot of overlap with
>> the tool Brett Lymn announced yesterday; have the two of you talked
>> about this all?
>I think I may have missed this post? Could someone send it to me? Brett
>- if you want to get together on this one, drop me a line?
I'll forward a copy.