Florent Daigni?re skrev: > * Zero3 <zero3 at zerosplayground.dk> [2008-11-26 22:07:11]: > >>>>>>>> Next, we must identify anything that can be improved in Freenet that >>>>>>>> would make writing these installers easier. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> IMHO moving the "wizard" part into the node itself was an >>>>>>> important step in the right direction. We could move the rest >>>>>>> into the node by always downloading the plugins and seednodes >>>>>>> file in the installer, and asking the user about the plugins >>>>>>> during the post-install wizard. Ideally we'd also ask the user >>>>>>> about auto-start in the post-install wizard (defaulting on but >>>>>>> executing a script to turn it off if the user asks us to). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I agree. It doesn't seem like that big of a task to move the rest >>>>>> of the stuff into the wizard (now you already have the >>>>>> framework). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Putting stuffs in the wizard goes against the packaging logic. On debian >>>>> you would want to use debconf to ask the user on how to configure his >>>>> node... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Both ways should probably be supported. >>>> >>>> >>> I see... and how exactly is that going to reduce the maintainance cost >>> again? I must have missed something. >>> >>> >> It's more about "doing things right", really. Obviously that does >> require extra work in the beginning, but if you look at the big picture, >> I think you will save time in the end by unifying the installation >> procedure with the other software in the world. I won't try to convince >> you about that if you disagree, because that would kind of be even more >> a waste of time. >> >> > > You don't get the picture: we are facing a human^wcodemonkey resource > shortage here. There is no need to convince me that each packaging > system has its assets and that having a properly written, maintained > package for each of them would be great... I am convinced of that... But > I do know that they are other areas of the code that needs improving > too. Not to mention that packaging (and more globally speaking dealing > with installation/platform specific issues) is everything *but* fun. > That's why I am not spending any more of my time on those related > matters. > > Right now we do provide and maintain *one* cross-platform installer; It's > arguably not perfect (hehe...) and does have defaults. It could use some > improvements... but no one is willing to work on that. > > I do not think that it's realistic for the project to spend any time > attempting to provide packages for any platform. Really that job needs > to be outsourced. I am one of those who think we shouldn't even provide > binary builds but source code. Many projects do it this way... and they > do find people to build and package their code. > > I will write some documentation on how to build and distribute freenet > in a cross-platform way. Then it will be up to people to follow the > guidelines and package the software. My guess is that writing that > documentation will be a waste of my time... but well... Let's try to be > optimistic for once. >
I hope time will prove you wrong then :) > So far no one has even replied to Ian's call for help > (http://archives.freenetproject.org/message/20081124.201152.ab6aeaba.en.html). > I already opted in for trying to find time for it. Guess that's the best you get for now :P - Zero3
