Re: sysinst split project - The Configuration File

[Silas Silva <silasdb%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 06:36:38PM -0800, Aaron J. Grier wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 12:18:23PM -0200, Silas Silva wrote:
> > I posted it here: http://pastebin.com/f5ec7a9f
> 
> how will partitions vs disklabel be handled for architectures which
> don't differentiate between the two?  sparc, alpha, decstation don't
> care about i386-style partitions.

Hey Aaron, thank you very much for your reply.

We actually know only i386 and xen ports and we have no experience with
other architectures (I just installed NetBSD on an alpha once, but
nothing more). We intend to make an alpha version working only for i386
first, but of course the new sysinst will need to be deployed on all
architectures when we have a stable version ready to be commited to CVS.

Well, I don't think any sysinst.conf file for specific architectures
will differ too much. We could just took out (or skip) the "partitions"
section on configuration files for these architectures (alpha, sparc,
etc.). Just an idea.

> add provisions for rc.conf settings and extra files in /etc?

Yeah, that would be great. What's better?:

1) Make /etc files contents available in sysinst.conf, e. g.:

    # Something like that:
    settings {
        file {
            path: /etc/rc.conf
            content: {
                multi-line content?
            }
        }
    }

2) Or just link them so the backend copies from the sets, CD or whatever,
to the host. E. g.:

    # Something like that:
    settings {
        file {
            source: /mnt/cdrom/defaults/etc/rc.conf
            destination: /etc/rc.conf
        }
        file {
            source: http://localserver/defaults/etc/sysctl.conf
            destination: /etc/sysctl.conf
        }
    }

Both options seem fine for me. Maybe it is a good idea to support both.
What do you think?

-- 
Silas Silva