[freenet-dev] Adding a user for Freenet breaks startup-without-login

[Florent Daignière]

* Victor Denisov <vdenisov at redline.ru> [2008-03-18 14:59:50]:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> |> I think that installer should at least ask if a dedicated user should be
> |> created, and an option to use an existing account. I have... what... 4
> |> freenet users now on my system (yeah, I've been lazy to properly
> |> uninstall freenet a couple of times).
> |>
> |
> | The installer allows more than one install to be performed on the same
> | computer... and belive it or not it's a feature.
> 
> Yes, I understand that. However, mandatory creating a new user on each
> install is also not a very good idea.
> 
> | Of course we could reuse the existing user and credentials but I don't
> | think it's the way to go : most users reinstall because they are having a
> | problem; not because they want more than one node... reusing things
> | from a "broken" install doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
> 
> I agree here. But giving an option to use existing account (perhaps
> verifying its permissions, etc) is still a good idea. Also, asking to
> remove existing accounts could be a good idea.

That's not gonna happen... Removing things during the install process
isn't an option.

> 
> | Yes we could ask whether a user should be created or not... but is that
> | pertinent ? I mean does the average user even know what the
> | asset/caveats of creating a new user are ? Of course we could explain
> | him the sound idea behind the whole thing... but then you loose in terms
> | of usability if your installer requires the user to actually understand
> | things and make a choice.
> 
> Again, I agree. Most users would gladly run Freenet under their own
> Administrator account, given the possibility :-(. However, perhaps
> having a set of "advanced" options, which could be set before Freenet is
> actually installed, is a good idea?

A good idea, yes, maybe... but they are technical difficulties with that
option. ATM we are using IzPack which doesn't allow to deal with such
things... I don't want to hack it ... nor to dedicate resources to
switch to anything else.

What about filling a feature request ticket on our bugtracker?

NextGen$
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080318/6f0a0a02/attachment.pgp