From owner-freebsd-libh Wed Nov 13 14: 9:31 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-libh@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57EED37B401 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:09:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.qc.uunet.ca (mail1.qc.uunet.ca [198.168.54.16]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E13D43E3B for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:09:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from anarcat@espresso-com.com) Received: from xtanbul.studio.espresso-com.com ([216.94.147.57]) by mail1.qc.uunet.ca (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id gADM9MZ21747; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:09:22 -0500 Received: from anarcat by xtanbul.studio.espresso-com.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18C5hA-00039g-00; Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:09:12 -0500 Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 17:09:12 -0500 From: The Anarcat To: Jordan K Hubbard Cc: Alexander Langer , libh@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problem confirmed (?) and death to lib[h]disk (!) (Re: serious libh linking problems) Message-ID: <20021113220911.GI9829@xtanbul.studio.espresso-com.com> References: <20021113213317.GG9829@xtanbul.studio.espresso-com.com> <9A478A86-F750-11D6-9957-000393BB9222@queasyweasel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9A478A86-F750-11D6-9957-000393BB9222@queasyweasel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-freebsd-libh@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed Nov 13, 2002 at 01:41:01PM -0800, Jordan K Hubbard wrote: > I think that perhaps the "core" of sysinstall can be compiled but > everything to do with the user interface, the details of which > distributions are selected, and so on - just about everything that's > "policy level" should be scripted. Why? Because it will make things > 100X easier for the universities and large ISPs and whatnot of the > world to completely change syinstall's behavior to fit their own unique > needs, say with different default package sets, menus and UIs in > different languages or different layouts, you name it. I would only > expect those parts of sysinstall which are so "core" and essential and > nature that nobody would ever want to customize them to be compiled. That is all well and nice in words, but I think there are more pressing matter for now. Of course everthing *can* be scripted. But why script the disk editor? Or if we script it, why would it even be part of libh's core? I think a disk editor is outside libh's scope. It can be pretty easy, once we get dynamic linking back online, to make a script load a (third party?) disk library and script from there. But the disk library is too much for libh for handle, I think, especially with the GEOM changes. So, yes, I agree that libh must provide a UI-indendant scripting language but it doesn't mean it must provide every damn feature scripts might need. 2 things: - UI library - package system rest is third party loadable modules. heck, if we can't make it third party, how can we possibly pretend to extend libh in any way?? That's what I'm willing to maintain. If anything else breaks, I think it shouldn't hinder libh development, which is hard enough as it is now. Sorry for the ranting, but things are getting pretty hard now. I've been struggling for a pretty good while and now that we're almost getting to have a semi-working package system, I'm stopped by yet another thing. It's really annoying. Cheers, A. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the message