Current-Users archive

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

Re: sysinst split project - The Configuration File

Am 15.12.2009 um 16:03 schrieb Silas Silva:

> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 08:12:45AM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
>> Instead of splitting/rewritting/ sysinstall or replacing it with  
>> bsdinstall, I'd suggest to evolve it:  Add Lua for the configuration  
>> and move the logic and user interface from C to Lua, keeping some core  
>> functionality of an installer in C, but make it available to Lua.  A  
>> good installer would also let me install packages, maybe even meta- 
>> packages, so that one of the first questions this installer asks, is:  
>> "what kind of system do yo want to install?" and provides me with a  
>> selection of meta-packages that are available on the distribution  
>> medium (and for which the dependent packages are also available for  
>> the architecture given).
>> Then the ideal installer would allow interactive operation or complete  
>> unattended operation, where installation instructions are give in a  
>> file.
>> Well, the ideal installer does not yet exist, but ahoka and myself  
>> have some loose plans to make exactly this happen...
> Hey Marc and all.
> Well, I was in doubt after reading the Turing-completeness problem of
> configuration vs. scripting and whether or not sysinst.conf should be
> Turing complete. But I mulled over it and I think using Lua on the
> project would be a good thing. One of the advantages of it is that we
> could trust the Lua parser, so it would not be necessary to create one
> more parser in Lex & Yacc as I previously suggested (although I'd love
> to do that :-P).

> Bringing Lua wields a bigger question: shouldn't NetBSD import to its
> tree, a powerful general-purpose interpreter? (sh, ksh, awk, bc, etc.,
> are not general-purpose). Why not just import Lua to the base system so
> people can built projects on it, like sysinst? Just an idea.

I am working on this.  Myself and some other developers want Lua in base.  For 
different projects, actually.  There is an email thread on tech-userlevel about 

> I've already used Lua embedded in a C++ program, not too much, but in a
> level enough to note that it works great and glue very well.
> Your ideas for sysinst are great. I would love to help on this project!
> Well, I'm not going to repost all the XML pro and cons that people
> posted here, but I disagree with the adoption of XML. However, since I'm
> much worried about helping bringing a new sysinst to live, I'll work on
> any solution, whatsoever.

The ones that will do the work will choose the tools, not the bystanders...

> Couldn't sysinst import/export from/to both formats, human-readable (Lua
> script or another) and XML? That would solve the controversy, but it may
> be difficult to maintain support for two different standards.

What would the gain be of having two configuration "languages"?  I guess it 
ould only add to complexity.

> Thank you very much!
> -- 
> Silas Silva

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index