[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Thoughts on the installer (early)



(btw, I got a bounce message on your email address)

> I agree with that.  But there isn't any reason that this couldn't be
> accomplished with a gtk-based interface. 

of course...

> And there are some merits to
> using a widget set that more resembles modern computing interfaces,

so [n]curses, slang, etc are not "modern" and standard?

there's definitely a place for a gtk-based UI, and it's on the cdebconf
TODO list, but doing gtk on console/fb doesn't seem to make a whole lot
of sense IMO.

> From what I gather today after playing around with gtk-fb today is
> that you would have to have the appropriate versions of several libraries
> available- the gtk & gdk libs, compiled for frame buffer support, 
> glib, the pango libs, and the freetype libs.

> That's a little overhead, yes, but I do think that since gtk-fb's

a *little*?  the gtk libs (the X ones, at least) adds up to about 2Mb.
That's bigger than the size of cdebconf, udpkg, anna, and their support
libs combined.

> motivation is for embedded devices that it would be adequate for our
> purposes.  From first glance at looking at the new debian installer,
> it looks like size is becoming less of an issue, since the appropriate
> modules (udebs) can be retreived while the installer is running.  At
> first glance, it seems feasible to me.

If you are proposing that, for broadband/CD-ROM based installs, that we
give the option of an X-based install where we use GTK+-type libraries
for a UI, that's perfectly reasonable, and quite doable in the cdebconf
framework. But if you look at the design, the udebs and cdebconf are
mostly aimed at bootstrapping -- this falls under the portion of stuff
you might, for example, put onto a floppy to get your install going so
that you can pull the rest of things in through the network on a CD-ROM.
Heck, as Joey puts it, this base system might not even have a shell....

> The way I see it, the benefit of using this approach over something
> like bogl (sorry, I've haven't seen this yet), is that it provides a
> complete set of widgets that we can work with to produce a very

bogl has a decent set of widgets... afaik it's one of the precursors of
microwindows. Actually in boot-floppies (potato) there's even some
wrappers to let it work in a pluggable fashion with dbootstrap.

> good.  I don't think it would be wise to scrap the bogl efforts and
> move towards something else, but what I'm asking is if it is feasible
> to move the UI that bogl implements over to use gtk-ui, as opposed to
> the lightweight, from scratch interface that is there already?

i don't want to sound very negative, but i really don't see the point of
gtk-fb. gtk on X sounds reasonable, and I'd welcome anyone who'd be
interested in writing a gtk UI module for cdebconf.

randolph
-- 
Debian Developer <tausq@debian.org>
http://www.TauSq.org/

Attachment: pgpXL6EJgZomY.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: