On Sun, Nov 23 1997 0:09 EST "Richard G. Roberto" writes: > The interactiveness of a package is a matter that could be taken > care of with a pkgask type utility in the short term. I like the idea.
> In the long term we should define an external* method for > packages to get configuration data that would otherwise > require interaction. We could do this now, even without a > centralized database. All we need is a method to call. The > method could abstract how the information is retrieved, > stored, etc. We would need some kind of per package state > flag or something to indicate that the package should use an > external method to get config data instead of prompting. > I'm not sure how to accomplish this. Well some of this is already around and is called `dtxtdb' and lies forgotten in experimental. (`dtxtdb' stores configuration values in a text database and makes it possible to read it non-interactively back. The discussion what front- end to use is still on-going. Even the discussion whether dtxtdb is at this state good enough is open. What is the consensus? Is it ready to be moved into base and to replace cfgtool? Lars?) > > The rest of the job would be writing some simple scripts. Disk > > paritioning being the hardest part. But I gave up, because nobody > > else seemed to think that non-interactive scripts were worth bothering > > with. I don't think so. There were quite a lot people who wanted non-interactive bulk installs and they originally were a point for 2.0. David (dtxtdb Author) -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
