Re: [GSoC] Sysinst alternative interface
Martin Husemann
thanks for your interest in the project.
Reading your description of the changes I wonder if you have looked at
sysinst (either code wise or from a user perspective) lately. There are
a lot of subtle things going on, like e.g. sysinst not asking for a CD
to install sets from if you booted from a CD that contains the proper
sets, or the install script upfront not asking for your terminal type
if you do not run on a serial console. And of course sysinst only
proceeds with the setup, if the full install procedure is clear, no
more questions need asking etc...
So some of the things you make sound like only the graphical version would
be expected to do, already happens. This is not meant to say you overlooked
something, or your suggestion is wrong - I only want to make sure you are
aware of the details, before you go on to design an overall software layout
and split between text based, graphical, and (unrelated to this SOC project)
unattended installer.
Martin
--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-...@muc.de
Martin Husemann
> Well, what I meant is that it would be good to first create the installation
> plan, let the user either make changes to it or accept as is. The current
> approach when you are asked questions and on each step can either accept the
> offered option or exit installer is a bit confusing. But on the other hand,
> I understand that adding the ability to, for example, go to a previous page,
> change something there, may be a complex thing to do.
Note that the 5.1 is a lot different to the -current one (which also has
gained some bugs right now). I think the "go back and undo selections"
part only is hard for partitioning itself, and for everything mostly is
avaliable, sometimes via a slightly longer loop than "just one step back"
though.
The sysinst UI is pretty much streamlined for very quick installs, if we
can make it even better (more userfriendly, error forgiving), the better. And
we should do it for the text version as well.
> You have much more experience with netbsd and sysinst, so I think you have a
> clearer vision of what should be changed and what left intact.
Heh, not sure - and others obviously disagree with me on details like this ;-)