Re: Aptitude, ARs
On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 01:03:14AM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 12:35:24AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote:
> > > > 2.- The menu code rewrite including it's new hierarchy. After all, it
> > > > resembles a proper division on Section/Subsection.
> > > Thanks for pointing out. I was thinking about menu data entries as an
> > > alternate source too. Problem is people does not put package in proper
> > > categories if we just set policy and expect things to happen.
> >
> > We can always report bugs if things don't happen.
> >
> > I'm interested in helping in the menu issue, too; I've offered help some
> > months ago, but I didn't get many answers. There are some different
> > problems there though, like coping with the existing Gnome and KDE menus.
I guess package selection under
desktop :: gnome :: ??? should somehow correspond to Gnome menu.
desktop :: kde2 :: ??? should somehow correspond to KDE menu.
How can we extract data?
...
> Anyway, I was thinking if we could perhaps come up with a unified
> section hierachy for both package browsing and menus. Both have to be
> redone IMHO and this would simplify things a lot.
This is very true.
> I'm not sure that package sections and menu sections can be considered
> equal though. Any thoughts?
This does need to be equal.
If browser can accept several tree information and it can narrow display
based on simple use of and/or to the set of packages selected by each
tree, it may be useful.
--
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32
.''`. Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers
: :' : http://qref.sf.net and http://people.debian.org/~osamu
`. `' "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" --- Social Contract
Reply to: