[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
I go on with my installer project, but there could be some changes, I
would like to know your opinion first. These are the options I have, I
would like to know which one you think is the best and if you know
about other one:
1- Use libgwin (a libggi toolkit) to make a front end for an existing
program (Debian, or RedHat) and run it on a ggi kernel. Good:
everything could be in a floppy disk and we would have a really nice
gui, I started to code this thing, so some work has alredy been done.
Bad: GGI needs more development, at least two or three months for a
middle usable relase; no supported cards (they could use a patched
ncurses installer... ).
2- The gfdisk author think we could run X if we use a compressed
ext2fs (he found a tool to do it), so we would use Gtk to make the
program. Good: we can use lots of code; a nice gui; it should be easy
to make a demo-distribution with our base; the user will install in
the GUI which he will use later if he use Gnome; we could obtain help
from Gnome. Bad: I think it is really difficult; no supported cards;
it needs lots of MBs.
3- Patch a ncurses installer. Good: well, few things. Bad: it won't be
4- Write a libgwin based LinuxConf frontend and write the installer as
LinuxConf modules. Good: we would have GGI, Gtk, Qt, ncurses and even
http frontends, and the user would use the better he can; I suppose
LinuxConf people would help us with this; the modules could be run
later to configure the system; consistency; .... Bad: I don't like the
atmosphere in LinuxConf, slow development, few people interested, C++
(I don't know it very well, I would prefer C); very much work.
5- The same than up, but with COAS. Good: the same, though it doesn't
have all that modules and frontends. Bad: close development; I don't
know how advanced it is and how it works.
6- Rewrite something similar to LinuxConf or COAS, but for us. Or talk
to LinuxConf people to redirect it (more advocacy is needed). Good: we
would have just what we need in a perfect way; a configurator tool is
needed the same than an installer. Bad: lots of work and time, and
lots of help needed.
As you can see, more I like the idea, more work it needs. I would like
to hear your commentaries to start to work on this now I have time.
And don't think this is a dictatorial thing, we could start it in a
way (a temporary thing) and change it later. If I see this discuss
take too much time, I will try to improve the RedHat installer to
have some ALPHA version. It won't be a good advance, but it would help
us to look for help if we have some code.
Thanks for your interest,