> * UBIQUITY_OEM_USER_CONFIG is a bit verbose as an environment variable name > (and "OEM user config" isn't a phrase I've ever used in connection with oem- > config, personally). How about just UBIQUITY_OEM? So, Ubiquity already had the idea of running in 'oem-config' mode, except just the first part of it (when the OEM is installing the OS and customizing). So I wanted a name that didn't conceptually conflict with the variable already used in that mode (self.oem_config). I figured 'the user configuration portion of an OEM install' somewhat naturally mapped to OEM_USER_CONFIG. I fear UBIQUITY_OEM would be confused with the first portion of an OEM install. I won't change it yet, but let me know if you're swayed by my golden words above. If not, I can change it. As long as the maintainers know what it means, I suppose it doesn't matter. It's not a user-visible environment variable. > * Use 1.99 rather than 1.99.0 in configure.ac, so that we don't have to rerun > autoconf for every minor revision. OK, will update > * Since 1.13.8 is currently UNRELEASED, you should merge its changelog > entries into those for 1.99.0 rather than leaving 1.13.8 as a stub. (Of course > this will change if 1.13.8 is released before we merge this branch.) Yeah, I didn't want to mess with that until I actually merged, but I guess it doesn't hurt to be ready. Will update > * I think you need to rerun debconf-updatepo. I noticed some diffs there that > seemed to be going backwards ("Erase and use the entire disk" replaced by "Use > the entire disk"). > > * There needs to be an oem-config-debconf package, even if it's only a stub; > finish-install.d/01oem-config-udeb relies on that name, as do existing seeds. > I think it's a good idea to have that interface anyway. > > * I'd rather have netcfg in oem-config than oem-config-debconf (or ubiquity- > frontend-debconf), even though it's only used in the debconf frontend right > now; in general I would prefer frontend packages not to deliver component-type > code as well. (ubiquity-frontend-mythbuntu is a weird exception, perhaps best > kept that way.) > > * Whichever package contains netcfg needs to be Architecture: any, and built > in *-arch targets in debian/rules; netcfg is written in C. > > * Don't hardcode the path to the hostname program. > > * set_debconf could be done with a little less duplication, I think - if in > OEM mode, set dccomm = None and dc = self.db, and refrain from closing dccomm > at the end. That way the code that actually talks to the debconf instance is > shared. > > * Perhaps OEM-only guards would be useful in the network and tasks > components? Similarly, I think it would be best to leave them out of > ubiquity/steps Choices until they actually work properly in ubiquity's > environment. OK, will update for the above issues > * I'm not convinced that we should set OVERRIDE_SYSTEM_USER outside OEM mode; > the only reason we set that is to cope with the fact that the temporary oem > user looks like a "system user" (bad naming; it means "ordinary user of the > system with uid 1000-29999", which has no overlap with 'adduser --system'!). Hmm, OK. I'll look at it. > * Why does language_label need an entry in string_questions? I don't see that > identifier anywhere else. Uh, right you are. That was from my initial port where I had a "port every quirk from oem-config and pare down later once it's all in place" attitude. But I never pared that line down. Will remove.