| 1 |
On Monday 26 January 2004 22:22, foser wrote: |
| 2 |
> Besides the fact that the document disregards most of the discussion |
| 3 |
> here on the D&R list so far concerning an installer. It -in my opinion-, |
| 4 |
> like most other installer projects (except pen2), describes an installer |
| 5 |
> that is a full replacement for the current installation process, which i |
| 6 |
> think shoots way beyond the target audience of an installer. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
That's why I wrote my orig reply in this thread. I think we should enhance the |
| 9 |
installation process instead of replacing it. We should allow the user to |
| 10 |
tell the installer what to do, skip/repeat/reorder steps and have access to |
| 11 |
the 'real' console all the time where the installer runs its commands and the |
| 12 |
user can run his as well. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I agree that if the installer becomes an all-or-nothing replacement, many |
| 15 |
people won't find it useful or enjoyable. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Also, with a good modular design we can add piece by piece what we think to be |
| 18 |
necessary, and in the other places the installer would just tell the user |
| 19 |
things out of the install howto or not even that. That way we avoid overdoing |
| 20 |
it - writing things our audience doesn't really need. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Dan Armak |
| 24 |
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE) |
| 25 |
Matan, Israel |
| 26 |
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key |
| 27 |
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 |
Archives