Peter Tribble wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 14:15, James Carlson wrote: >> Peter Tribble writes: >>> Configuration is a core >>> component of the installation process, so should be treated >>> as such. Making it available at other times is fine. >> I don't agree. While I agree that giving the user access to >> configuration tools during install is a good thing (and would like to >> see us provide *more* access to *more* tools), I strongly disagree >> with the idea that install time should be a "special time." > > I think we have a difference of emphasis rather than opinion. >
I agree with that assessment. > Absolutely, installation isn't special. There shouldn't > be a difference between what you can do at installation > and what you can do later. The tools should be the same > and look the same. > Which is most definitely the intention. > The difference is that I would start off by making sure > it worked for the installer and then re-use that all the > rest of the time, rather than taking something designed > for use on a running system and shoe-horning that into > the installation system. > The design work for all of it is going to be done roughly simultaneously, which will help, and I assure you that I have no desire to see it appear to be "shoe-horned" in; with the early, iterative review process I expect we'll follow it should be apparent to all of us sooner rather than later if that's happening. To some extent, what you describe is how it's working out, in that we've staffed a project focused on the configuration tasks that we know must be run for installation to work at all, as a specific instance of the general case, and that will help drive the general solution. Dave
