Arik Fraimovich wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 7:00 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > I think part of the problem with a laconica installer vs. a > WordPress or > MediaWiki installer is that Laconica requires all these daemons to be > started and such. WordPress just requires the creation of a database. > Because of this, I actually think that a web-based installer for > Laconica > isn't feasible because it would require the web user (www-data) to > run the > daemons. > > [...] > > As long as the software architecture depends on these daemons > running to > enable all the features, it's really not feasible to have a slick > web-based > installation. > > > As far as I know the daemons are optional - I'm running laconi.ca > <http://laconi.ca> installation without them. So I guess for most > people that need the installer running without the daemons will be > just fine (at least for the beginning).
This is true, you don't *have* to run these other services if all you want is the web interface working. Not saying that Scott's idea isn't a good one, but a simple GUI for the config file I think is universally helpful. It could also serve as a place where checks and notifications could be alerted to the installer about other dependencies not there/working correctly. If needed, we could create a simple script (ie Bash) that could insert the wanted services into runlevels and start them etc by just having a user calling it; which again the installer could mention. -Matt _______________________________________________ Laconica-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
