Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Previously Brederlow wrote: > > But what should be done is that when a script falls into interactive > > mode, e.g. has to ask a question, and thus waits for the user, it is > > suspended and put into a queue of scripts waiting for user input. > > There should really be only one moment during which the installation > process is allowed to be interactive. Making other parts interactive > does not make sense if you do things right. > > Wichert.
Yep, interactivity should be a short stage, but some programm will ask a question and then go munching data for several minutes. Then the next packages comes up and asks a question and goes munching data for 2 hours (well, presume a real slow computer). My proposal is that all questions are put into a queue, so that when one question is answered the next one will be there already. Also it would be possible to lay of questions until later or until somebody is back how knows. That would allow to leave say cvs unconfigured until you got irc running and can ask. Also the aproach with queues wouldn't need a big change in the scripts. Packages that asks questions would be suspended while packages that don't can go on. At the end only packages that ask questions will be unconfigured and then the user can answere to them when he comes back from cinema and be done with the installation quickly. I know that it would still take some time to run the rest of the script after answering the questions and also further questions will pop up, but it would be a simple and easy way to improve things by much. Also, when kept flexible, it then can be changed easily to a non-interactive aproach via database or other proposals. They can work fine together. May the Source be with you. Goswin