Hi Kai,

On 2021-08-08 22:15:34, you wrote to me:

 KR>>>>> The concept is well described from my point of view.

 WV>>>> So I wouldn't call it "well described".

 KR>>> True. I didn't understand that you are now much deeper into
 KR>>> details of different modules.

 WV>> I am?

 KR> Yes, you are. :) For me the list of commands (that you liked) in this echo
 KR> did match to the sequence explanation of the huskybse INSTALL file.

First you have to know you have to start with huskybse. That isn't even mentioned in the htick/INSTALL file.

 KR>>> My point of view was on the basic sequence of the building
 KR>>> process.

 WV>> And that process isn't very well documented in my opinion.

 KR> Please compare the list of commands in this thread to the examples of the
 KR> INSTALL file. I can't see much difference. The sudo command is missing
 KR> there.

See above.

 KR> To tell my real opinion, no, it would not be nice if fidonet node
 KR> software would be a one-click installation. This would result in high
 KR> administration workload in the *C structure and some weeks later into
 KR> dead node listings or nodelist clearings. Fast install and fast
 KR> forgotten.

This is already a problem! :-(

 WV>> But you would have to convince a lot of distribution maintainers to
 WV>> support husky,

 KR> Sorry, again no. You could set up and maintain your own repository. The
 KR> user have to add the repo url into the apt settings.

Correct.

 KR>>> Maybe i'm too much used to husky but i don't see htick as a
 KR>>> standalone programm.

 WV>> It is for me.

 KR> What about the dual configuration in your non-husky installation and the
 KR> fidoconfig required for htick? How do you keep them in sync?

It hasn't been a problem sofar... The binkd config is also separate, makenl is separate.


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815