Fathi Boudra a écrit : >>> I have no issue with Adept, and I would love to see a good Qt/KDE >>> package manager, but if we're to get KPackageKit, I'd like to be sure >>> that we won't sponsor yet another APT front-end that won't be used. > > Still, it remains the aptitude-qt solution. > But it seems aptitude code is tighten with the gtk backend and extending it to > add the qt backend cannot be done now. > > Does it make sense to finish Adept3 when it can(should?) be superseeded later > by aptitude ? aptitude-qt would not be possible before squeeze. That would leave us with no usable Qt4 package manager. > Why not finish aptitude-gtk separation then properly add qt pieces ? Another strategy is to replace the adept/ept backend of adept 3.0 with the aptitude backend once it is transformed into a library. It seems to have become some sort of habit for aptitude to explore new features before having them ported back to the common apt code. Cheers Arthur -- Obey Arthur Liu <http://www.milliways.fr>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature