Dave Miner wrote: > Kyle McDonald wrote: > ... >> This leads me to another thought I had recently... In the interest of >> minimizingf duplication, Is there any plan in the future to have the >> interactive installer just create a config file interactively that is >> then fed to AI to do the install? >> > > I have always said, repeatedly and from the beginning, in writing > (read the strategy paper from 3 years ago) and verbally, that the > interactive installer is required to generate a suitable profile for > reproducing an installation once we have defined the interfaces for it > to do so. I've seen that requirement before. It seems a good start. > Whether it works as you suggest above is actually immaterial to that > feature; some of the usability problems in the old GUI were because it > worked in the fashion you suggest. Which suggestion?
Did the old installer create a JumpStart profile and then call pfinstall? While a hared library could eliminate most of the duplication between an interactive installer, and an Automated one. It seemed like (given that one requirement of the interactive one was to ask all questions upfront befroe starting the install) having the interactive GUI create an AI profile, and call AI, would also eliminate duplication (and therefore QA and bug-fixing costs) Not to mention it would actually 'test' the profile generated by using it. The Filesystem definition suggestion is immaterial to the suggestion of one installer feeding the other. If that's what you menat then you're right. :) -Kyle > > Dave
