Rather than having a module, why couldn't the inc files be included in a base installation profile? Was it because of the dependency check? I've just kinda realised how useful it would be if my project the_base profile was merged with this, where I'm playing with the idea of installing a base set of modules, and also allowing site creators to add their own content types / views by importing dumps into a dir. The possibilities could be, a sub dir for each export type? ie, a dir for imageapi presets, blocks info, etc.
Surely this would open up the idea that a module could then be written to create files to export these known data types from a live site using a kind of reverse install_profile_api, which could then be easily included into such a base install profile?
Comments
Comment #1
damienmckennaAnother idea, how about making the_base into a profile that could ship with install_profile_api as an example of a super-simple, turn-key solution that would work for most people? For me, I have dependencies between taxonomies, menu items and nodes, so it makes sense for me to use install_profile_api, but I'm sure many others would be fine with just the basics.
Comment #2
James Andres commentedFor my sites I build an install profile with a directory structure like this:
Then I use install_profile_api helpers to script the installation of those basics.
If it's a multi-site system, I usually build a few helper files like
shared_modules.phpandshared_tables.phpwhich I include into my settings.php and my install profiles.Comment #3
dwwIt's a module because that's currently the only good way to share contributed code among many installation profiles.