Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:43:09 -0500 From: The Anarcat <anarcat@anarcat.ath.cx> To: Jordan K Hubbard <jkh@queasyweasel.com> Cc: Alexander Langer <alex@big.endian.de>, libh@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problem confirmed (?) and death to lib[h]disk (!) (Re: serious libh linking problems) Message-ID: <20021113234308.GJ9829@xtanbul.studio.espresso-com.com> In-Reply-To: <66975191-F760-11D6-9957-000393BB9222@queasyweasel.com> References: <20021113220911.GI9829@xtanbul.studio.espresso-com.com> <66975191-F760-11D6-9957-000393BB9222@queasyweasel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Exactly. However, scripting is not necessarly for 'the average user', but more for the power user, actually. One might wish to script the disk editor to automagically create fixed-sized partitions or something... That said, I'm really confused by your last sentence, could you make it clearer? :) Antoine <-- yes, antoine On Wed Nov 13, 2002 at 03:34:06PM -0800, Jordan K Hubbard wrote: > I think you may have taken this as a wider mandate for "what's > scriptable" than I intended. I also see no reason why the disk editor > would be changed by an average user, though I'm sure both of you would > also agree that being able to localize it is pretty important. :-) > That said, getting out a working prototype should probably be given a > higher degree of importance than anything else for all the reasons that > Antoine states. > > - Jordan > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2002, at 02:09 PM, The Anarcat wrote: > > >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 > > > -- > Jordan K. Hubbard > Engineering Manager, BSD technology group > Apple Computer > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-libh" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021113234308.GJ9829>