| 1 |
On Wednesday 04 February 2004 00:16, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 17:03, Paul de Vrieze wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I find an after-the-fact interference idea to be quite unnatural. Another |
| 4 |
> > option would be to feed the backend two xml files which basically have |
| 5 |
> > null actions such that they complement eachoter. Such a solution however |
| 6 |
> > would be suboptimal to me |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I don't understand why this is unnatural. Could you develop a case |
| 9 |
> scenario what would warrant the pausing? Personally, I would prefer |
| 10 |
> hooks for user defined scripts (between stages). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That would enable powerful customization of the process while leaving the |
| 13 |
execution unattended (no pauses). However it doesn't fill the need for |
| 14 |
optional pausing between steps, because not everything can be done in a |
| 15 |
script. In particular, a user might want to look at what the installer's done |
| 16 |
and act on it. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
-- |
| 19 |
Dan Armak |
| 20 |
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE) |
| 21 |
Matan, Israel |
| 22 |
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key |
| 23 |
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 |
Archives