> On Oct 17, 2015, at 6:35 PM, Jim Hall <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 01:50:22 +0200, Jerome Shidel <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Hopefully, over the next couple days, I expect to have some free time to >>>> finish the FDI 1.2 batch installer. This does not include a couple >>>> advanced options. Such as altering the installation target or detailed >>>> package selection. Those will require me to finish V8PT first. > [..] >>>> If nobody minds skipping those advanced installer features and everyone >>>> gets motivated on getting release out, it could be a Halloween Edition. >>> > >> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Matej Horvat <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Hold your horses. What about testing, to make sure it works in all edge >>> cases and when upgrading from 1.0 or 1.1? And localizing? The old >>> installer was available in several languages, so this one should be too. >>> >>> I'd also appreciate "advanced" features for the case when you want to >>> install e.g. one or two things from NET or UTIL in addition to BASE, but >>> not everything. Yes, there's FDNPKG, but what when you don't have a 386+ >>> and an Internet connection? >>> > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 12:48 PM, Michael Brutman <[email protected]> > wrote: >> +1 >> >> Also, I personally think the 'batch file setup' idea is deeply flawed. >> >> There is a balance to achieve. The more complicated a task is, the more the >> complexity should be hidden away in a few key places. An operating system >> is the canonical example of this; we build operating systems so that people >> can build programs or use them without having to do task and device >> management directly. An operating system installer which is to be used by >> millions [or in our case hundreds ;-) ] of people should try to hide as much >> complexity as possible. I don't think you can do that with batch files. >> >> Maybe I've misread what is going on. Is there a one page summary/design doc >> of what the new installer is supposed to do and how it is doing it? What >> are the target machines and what install media will be supported? >> > > > I had the idea when I was starting to write an update to the FreeDOS > install program, a while ago. When you take a step back to look at it, > the install program is a compiled program that reads a set of files, > queries the user for what to install, then unzips the packages into > the destination. And the FreeDOS install process is a set of smart > batch files that sets up the environment, calls the install program, > then does some cleanup. > > When I looked at updating the install program, I realized that the > install program didn't need to be a compiled program. We could do it > equally well with a smart batch file, using a set of enhanced batch > file tools. I put the idea out there, and Jerome picked it up. > > My ideal is that the FreeDOS install process should be greatly > simplified. I think the current FreeDOS install process for FreeDOS > 1.1 has too many steps. How many options do we need to provide? Is it > necessary to provide that much resolution to what packages to install > v not install? DOS Isn't that complicated. DOS isn't a big operating > system. It should be pretty straightforward to install DOS. > > I think the FreeDOS install process should be this simple: "Do you > want to install everything, or just the BASE packages?" "Do you want > to install source code too?" Once you've answered these setup > questions, the install process should be automatic. This makes the > installation really easy for the user. And it makes things easier for > us when people ask for help with FreeDOS - you don't have to wonder > what packages they might have skipped; either they installed > everything or they installed just the BASE.
Agreed. Although, while building the new installer, I have tried to take into consideration what types of uses that people may intend for their installation of FreeDOS. Hobbyists, DOS Gammers, dedicated systems and vendors. These are some of the reasons why I have structured the installer with stages and such other mechanisms. This gives it the ability to be easily extended, expanded and modified for custom use cases. For example, a vendor could modify the config variable FSCAN from it’s default value of “n” to “y” and with no other changes to the actual installer, automatically include their own custom configuration batch files on a separate disc or floppy while performing their installation. Also, at any point in the future, someone could easily add their own prompts and setup routines into the installation process without touching a single byte of the original installer. Just drop in their customizations and create their own release. > > I've talked about it on the mailing list several times, and I've > reviewed it on my personal FreeDOS page > (http://www.freedos.org/jhall/). I think these blog posts are the > summary/ design doc you are looking for: > > > http://freedos-project.blogspot.com/2015/05/a-few-thoughts-on-simplifying-install.html > http://freedos-project.blogspot.com/2015/07/visual-batch-tools-simplifying-install.html > http://freedos-project.blogspot.com/2015/08/thoughts-on-updating-install-process.html > > > > Jim > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
