> So, if it is going to be restructured, I'd like to find these features > on the new one too. I don't think a restructuring is in order, other the one that has been ongoing for a while. Those features will still be in place, if I understand the way the new installer works at this point. I don't think it is up to the user, however, it starts trying interfaces one at a time with a certain priority until it finds one that initializes correctly. > Sure, you are right, but let user make their choice: this mean that > gtk-fb will depend (and go) on a CD or network installation. With Yes, I'm beginning to realize that this is probably the best place for it (CD install). > > I admit I'd rather have a less hokey widget set, but the other > > advantage of BOGL is a compact utf8 and i18n library; does GTK have > > something similar? > > I think this is not the point and taking the discussion on "this is > better and > this is not" whill not help. Actually, I think this is a very important point. First, it has to have international support. Second, the author? of bogl admits to it having a hokey widget set. Well, that is the tradeoff between size (fit on a floppy) and usability. I think its a justified tradeoff for floppy based installations, the more I think about it. I still think we should examine whether using the frame buffer over X would be a benefit. Once the code is written for one, it should be easy to make it work for the other (although I couldn't get gtk-hello.c to compile with the frame buffer :)) -- Chris Ruffin <cmruffin@debian.org>
Attachment:
pgpSwaRJC_iYJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature