Jack Schwartz wrote: > Hi everyone. > > Last week I thought I had sewn up the issue around how to deal with > network configuration and the text-mode DDU. This morning it came up > again. It seems to come down to how important network configuration > is/isn't in the text-mode DDU context. > > 1) Should the text-mode DDU configure the network if necessary? I > anticipate that NWAM will be brought up by default, and it will work > when the network has DHCP. But what if DHCP is lacking or there is > some other reason why the network is unavailable to the system? > Should the DDU display network configuration screens to fix the system > to work on the network? > > Some think it is enough to allow for network setup in the installer > itself; this would mean, though that after setting up the net in the > installer, they would have to quit the installer to run the DDU. > Sounds like a rats-maze to me. Some think DDU functionality should be > part of the installer. (This would be a radical departure from our > current path.) I know I sort of went along last week, but doing network configuration from within the DDU seems really out of scope. The user could use the shell to configure a static IP if needed. And the DDU can still be used to install drivers from local media as the current ITU does.
As for NWAM, I agree that it should be brought up by default, but it is likely that the text-based installer media might run into the same race condition that Alok has experienced with the auto-installer. Frank > > If the answer to (1) is yes... > > 2) The network config screens and functionality I planned would be > coded in a library common to both the text-installer and the DDU (for > consistency, efficiency of coding, and maintainability). However, > some think that the functionality of network configuration is too > broad to be encapsulated in a common library (or a few common > functions), and that something could change at a different code level > in the future, which would require duplicate code changes elsewhere. > I don't think so, but I'm no expert, which is one reason why I seek > your opinion. > > 3) If network configuration screens are displayed, why not do a screen > to configure a name service? I saw email earlier today suggesting > this was a bad idea, but having it would allow one to specify a system > name instead of just an IP address. This sounds like a much better > user experience to me. Is it really not important? > > Thanks, > Jack > _______________________________________________ > caiman-discuss mailing list > caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
