[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Installer project
>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,
>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
>4- Write a libgwin based LinuxConf frontend and write the installer
>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
>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
>to LinuxConf people to redirect it (more advocacy is needed). Good:
>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
>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
>us to look for help if we have some code.
>Thanks for your interest,
PS: I forgot, I am not subscribed to the mailing list, please CC me
your answers. Thank you very much.