Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My thoughts were more along the lines of linuxconf but more modular.. > Yours seem to me more along the lines of a registry ala windoze.. How > do you propose to deal with the shortcomings of that system?
The windows registry only has name/values, this could easily include the prompts as well. The windows registry is designed to make it impossible to edit without a special tool, this wouldn't have to be. The windows registry doesn't have an associated tool for direct entry of data, it relies on "object oriented" code to stuff approprate values in (so in this respect, it's more like linuxconf than like Wichert's system). [I say "object oriented" in quotes because often the only feature that makes the code "object oriented" is that it has data hard-coded into the program "object". Then again, I'm showing my bias: I love object oriented design techniques, but I despise most of what I've seen of object-oriented implementation.] A more telling difference is scope. The Windows registry is central, damage it and you've made it so your system can't run. Linuxconf is more distributed -- for the most part, it just populates existing configuration files. The config information gleaned using prompts in dpkg scripts is rather more minimal than either of these. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
