| 1 |
On Tuesday 23 August 2005 17:12, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
> > |
| 3 |
> > Wouldn't it better suit our needs to write a configuration program |
| 4 |
> > that packages can feed some custom configuration questions, and that |
| 5 |
> > then spits out something that can be used by the ebuilds. This would |
| 6 |
> > allow offline configuration of ebuilds etc. And something that was |
| 7 |
> > saved. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> This limits the possibilities of what can be done, no? For example, |
| 10 |
> answers determining the following questions or the selection of |
| 11 |
> questions based on how the package was installed. Indeed there could be |
| 12 |
> different questions based on whether it appears to be an upgrade or |
| 13 |
> fresh install. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> If the only benefits are being able to provide a consistent interface |
| 16 |
> and "offline" configuration, I don't really see the effort being worth |
| 17 |
> it. A usable interface abstraction can't really be created until the |
| 18 |
> requirements are known (which they're not due to pkg_config being |
| 19 |
> severely underused) and batched configuration can be done by creating a |
| 20 |
> text file with answers and piping. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
You're right. Such a program could anyway be used for most packages. That |
| 23 |
might currently be a better solution (and would limit the complexity of |
| 24 |
the program). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Paul |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 30 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 31 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 32 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives