1 |
Eric Sammer wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Short answer is that it doesn't cover all the features users want. |
4 |
> (Remember we're talking about users, not just ourselves, etc.) |
5 |
|
6 |
It doesn't cover ALL of the features, but it does cover a lot of them. |
7 |
Just briefly reviewing over the initial specifications: |
8 |
* Multiple front ends - Definately |
9 |
* Reusible back end framework - Sort of, but arguably not. |
10 |
* Automated deployement - Definately |
11 |
* Dry run profile generation - Yes |
12 |
* Full support for all Gentoo architectures - I doubt it. And it |
13 |
definately hasn't been tested on much more than x86 |
14 |
* Specialized profiles - Possible, but no one's done any work to create any. |
15 |
* Open policies and standards use - No, not really. |
16 |
* Integration with future configuration projects - No. |
17 |
|
18 |
As far as design goes, GLIS is fairly similar to what is specified (at |
19 |
least as far as my untrained eyes can tell). |
20 |
|
21 |
>> It even seems to me that an initial goal of GLI is to get to the |
22 |
>> point where GLIS is at right now, i.e. working, based on a |
23 |
>> configuration file, and highly flexible. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> It's coincidence. The reason it's being rebuilt is because the |
26 |
> architecture had to change to accommodate the required features. |
27 |
|
28 |
Probably not coincidence, probably just good practice if you want to |
29 |
write a serious installer. :-) |
30 |
|
31 |
>> GLIS is written in bash and made up of about 8 small bash scripts |
32 |
>> (except for the partition code, which is way too big for bash), and |
33 |
>> in my opinion this is really all you need for a gentoo installer |
34 |
>> since all it takes to install gentoo is a few bash commands. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> And while it's good that something such as that works for you, there's |
37 |
> somewhere around 250,000 - 500,000 gentoo users out there (last I |
38 |
> heard) that this doesn't work for. If it did, they wouldn't be asking |
39 |
> for something else. |
40 |
|
41 |
While, a few bash commands do work for me, but in my next sentence I |
42 |
said that "GLIS simply takes those commands and puts them into scripts." |
43 |
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most of the 250-500 thousand potential |
44 |
gentoo user's would be willing to type in ./glis to get gentoo |
45 |
installed, and the rest would be willing to wait for a GUI. Of course |
46 |
most of those people wouldn't be willing to sit down and take two hours |
47 |
or so editing the glis config file the first time they do it. And a good |
48 |
interface to the config file would be a must if glis was going to be |
49 |
taken seriously. |
50 |
|
51 |
>> I've followed this installer project from its beginning in January, |
52 |
> |
53 |
> This may come off wrong, but if you've been following it since its |
54 |
> beginning, the differences in goals between GLIS and the GLI should be |
55 |
> clear, as should the need for the GLI. |
56 |
|
57 |
This is partially the main reason I wrote this email now, and not in |
58 |
January. Perhaps I just need it spelled out for me. As I said |
59 |
previously, to install gentoo takes a few bash commands, these commands |
60 |
would fit ideally into a bash script. There's a few areas that this idea |
61 |
fails though, as can be proven just by reading over the partitioning |
62 |
code in glis. Bash is not an ideal language to write a partitioner, 400 |
63 |
lines of bash code full of nested loops is just too much for any normal |
64 |
person to handle. Another area where this fails is in editing system |
65 |
config files, the way glis does this, in my opinion, is not pretty and |
66 |
full of potential bugs. I think it would be very difficult to write a |
67 |
good, stable config parser/editor in bash. |
68 |
|
69 |
So, I do understand a few of the reason's for GLI, but after two months |
70 |
the difference is still not fully clear to me. |
71 |
|
72 |
>> but it seems like most of core developer's don't have as much spare |
73 |
>> time to devote to the project as they may have initially thought. |
74 |
> |
75 |
> Not entirely true... just because cvs activity isn't streaming, |
76 |
> doesn't mean it's not being worked on. |
77 |
|
78 |
I didn't mean to imply that no work had been done or that the work that |
79 |
has been done is not significant. I believe quite the opposite, all I |
80 |
was trying to imply was that the project may take a bit longer than |
81 |
previously thought. (I'm aware that no one has really even given a |
82 |
ballpark estimate of the eta for gli, but I think it's hard to argue |
83 |
that it's progressing as fast as it seemed it would at the end of January). |
84 |
|
85 |
>> If you adopted GLIS as gentoo's installer right now then at least |
86 |
>> gentoo would have something, and in 6-12 months when GLI is done you |
87 |
>> could switch over it. |
88 |
> |
89 |
> Unfortunately, that would cause even further upset. See, if you |
90 |
> introduce something new, get them to learn it, and then replace it |
91 |
> with something with a very different feature set and design, well, |
92 |
> you'll piss people off. |
93 |
|
94 |
This is something I definately overlooked. But how different will the |
95 |
feature set actually be? The way I see it GLI will have (pretty much) |
96 |
everything GLIS had but way more, and be way cooler. Of course the |
97 |
configuration file will be completely different and somebody who's use |
98 |
to the GLIS config file would likely be pissed at having to switch. |
99 |
However, I'm not convinced that this is a real issue. If people are |
100 |
upset that gentoo switched "official" installers then so-be-it, it's not |
101 |
like they won't be able to use the old way anymore and it's not like |
102 |
they chose gentoo because of it's cool assed installer. I'm just trying |
103 |
to say, if GLI was lacking in features compared to GLIS, I'd sympathize |
104 |
with the pissed-off, otherwise, as long as they were given sufficient |
105 |
warning, I wouldn't be too worried about them. |
106 |
|
107 |
> It's a bit more complicated than that. There's more to application |
108 |
> design than drawing two boxes on a white board and labeling one |
109 |
> "Backend" and one "GUI" no matter what people say. |
110 |
|
111 |
For a lot of applications I would agree, but not for this one. If a gui |
112 |
was developed for glis and then we wanted to switch it to gli, with the |
113 |
foresight that it would be switched, it could easily be made up of three |
114 |
main parts. 1) reading in the config 2) asking the user questions 3) |
115 |
writing the config. 1 and 3 would need to be completely rewritten for a |
116 |
different installer, 2 (which is the essence of the GUI and most |
117 |
difficult) could remain largely the same, except for maybe a few more |
118 |
features that would need to be added to it. |
119 |
|
120 |
> there have probably been few bugs in GLIS because it doesn't meet the |
121 |
> needs of the majority of users. |
122 |
|
123 |
You're probably right. Small user base generally equals small number of |
124 |
bugs found. But I think glis doesn't meet the needs of the majority for |
125 |
two main reasons, 1) no interface to the config file 2) no one really |
126 |
knows about it. |
127 |
|
128 |
> As a (rather contrived) for-instance... |
129 |
> |
130 |
> We build an installer like GLI with multiple front ends, |
131 |
> auto-deployment for large networks, reusable... [SNIP] The world is a |
132 |
> better place. Gentoo is a better distro. Linux gains more acceptance. |
133 |
> |
134 |
It's a nice story, but I'm not really sure I see it's relevance to not |
135 |
using GLIS. In fact I see exactly the opposite, why hold an installer |
136 |
back only to delay the world being a better place ;-). |
137 |
|
138 |
Basically, I was just seeing if anyone thought it would be a worthwhile |
139 |
idea to adopt glis as an "unofficial-official" installer until gli is |
140 |
ready, develop a working UI that could be easily interchanged between |
141 |
both, and give the user's a little something right now. There's a lot of |
142 |
issues involved in doing this and perhaps for now it's best to just |
143 |
remain focussed on one installer instead of having the worry of two. |
144 |
|
145 |
Thanks for your reply though, it definately cleared a few things up for me. |
146 |
|
147 |
Scott |
148 |
|
149 |
-- |
150 |
gentoo-installer@g.o mailing list |