Subject: Re: 1.3Beta
To: John F. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 12/02/1997 21:51:49
>Does sysinst get copied to an MS-DOS filesystem for use?
No, not in normal use.
>If not, there is little reason why it needs to have 8 or fewer characters
>in its name, and I'd suggest install_system (perhaps with a second link of
>install-system). (If it *does* get copied to an MS-DOS filesystem, then
>SETUP.EXE is a much more traditional name for such a thing, even if it doesn't
>act like *shudder* InstallShield.)
The bottom line here is that the name 'sysinst' is _not_ going to
change for the 1.3 release. It's far too late for that. But that
sysinst is an MI tool used on a couiple of other ports for 1.3, with
more in the pipeline for future releases. Any name chosen has to be
reasonably mnemonic, avoid clashes with existing utilties, and to be
suitable for MI use.
SETUP.EXE just doesn't work as an MI name.
The current plan for sysinst include evolving it to be capable of
doing more of the `system configuration' tasks currently done by hand:
setting up rc.conf, /etc/resolv.conf, network addresses, etc; and
possibly installing packages. (Without *requiring* that you use
sysinst for these, of course.) "install-system" isn't a very good
name for a tool that does all this, either. "smit" has been used
elsewhere; is that a better precedent?
But the bottom line is, sysinst is an MI tool with MD components for
various ports. If you want to change the name, port-i386 just isn't
the right place to be doing so and this isn't the best time: (all the
people working on sysinst are very busy honing it and/or making
releases). Try on current-users, after the 1.3 release is out.