Re: RFC: A method to use Admin tools, like linuxconf (Summary)
Hi,
Ok. I would find Linuxconf acceptable if:
1) linuxconf is optional
2) It coexists with current init methods
3) The process is reversible, i.e., it is just as easy to remove
LinuxConf as it is to install it, without hosing the system
4) We don't scrap init in favour of the LinuxConf activator
Reason:Allowing one to choose activators at will requires a far
stricter auditing - we'll have to not only make sure that both
activators were working, but that one may switch back and forth
at will. Our bug list is long enough without adding this added
complexity. If the Linuxconf is that much better, move to it,
and junk init (it would have to be seriously better).
5) LinuxConf uses /etc/init.d scripts where available
6) We should not have to modify dpkg (hah!) or seriously modify
packaging policy.
7) a config tool should be *only* a config tool.(IMHO)
I'm not sure whether this can be done, and whether it would
still be worth considering. If this can be done, go ahead and package
it. If this can't be done, or requires major reworking of dpkg or our
package built methods, IMHO we have more pressing things to do at
the time (like fixing dselect and whittling down bug lists) than for
a enhncement of something that is not broken.
Question: ``Linuxconf has its central config file and that only
contains the data that there is no standard place to put.''
Can one configure what Linuxconf is data that has a standard
place? (/etc/news/organization contains the organization string on
Debian systems. but may well be considered non-standard as far as
unices are considered.
manoj
ps. Don't get me started about ADA.
--
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:srivasta@acm.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com
Reply to: