On Wed Apr 24, 2002 at 04:26:33PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > Antoine Beaupre wrote: > > Le Mercredi 24 avril 2002, à 11:12 , Mike Meyer a écrit : > > > Your simple shell script has to prompt for floppies. That needs UI > > > code. The people who know have decided that the current UI code isn't > > > up to snuff. Hence libh. > > > > Come on.. The current package system and sysinstall are quite good at > > prompting for a simple yes/no question. The issue is really not there, I > > think. > > Actually, the prompting is problematic. All such questions should, > by definition, be front-loaded. Otherwise, you have to babysit the > installation process, which is never a good thing.
Yes. But right now, that's how it's made anyways. My point is that it's not related to packaging base. > But that's beside the point: basically, any HCI (Human Computer > Interaction) is, by definition, through a UI. > > > Libh is developping a UI, fine. But we need to develop a way to package > > base efficiently. > > A good first start would be to have it be composed of packages > instead of distfiles, and to have a mandatory/optional flag. Yes. If the base Makfiles were setup to generate packages instead of distros, I think a lot of people would be much happier. > Actually, wasn't Eric Melville already dealing with this? You're probably referring to the binup project? Well I haven't seen much come out of the project lately, so I wonder... > > I'm concerned with getting base packaged. It shouldn't be too hard to > > package base in either libh or classic pkgtools once the framework is in > > place. > > > > I'm concerned that since libh doesn't currently aim at handling the > > current bin.xx brute-force system, it will need base to be packaged in > > order to install a running system. > > That's an incredibly positive thing (IMO). Yup. A. -- Why bother building more nukes until we use the ones we already have?
msg33947/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
