On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, Simon Burge wrote:

> Have you got any ideas on how sysinst can be improved?  I'll agree that
> it's a little clunky (hmm, do I mention that I was almost impressed with
> the Solaris installation procedure?), but I think it's a _lot_ better
> than "doing it by hand".

Well I'm sure that sysinst is fine for a once off installation but if one
is installing on more than a few machines then it gets tedious. I'd rather
a set of installation scripts - that way it would be evident what each
script did and one could change it if it didn't suit. Also scripts are
more suited to automation than interactive programs. 

(One gripe is that when editing the partitions, the partition letters do
not correspond to the same keys on the menu - I think it would be more
convenient if they did).

I'd say the most tricky part of any installation is getting the
partitioning/labelling correct but once that it done there isn't much more
to do other than setting up /etc/fstab, untarring a few archives, and
cobbling together the appropriate network configuration files - all of
which can be achieved largely automatically with scripts. The case is even
stronger when one is installing on lots of identical machines. 

Of course I'm making a few assumptions about people's installation
arrangements so I would not doubt that 'sysinst' is ideal for many people.

John P.