Re: graphical apt, trials and tribulations
Seth Nickell <snickell@stanford.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 08:41, Joey Hess wrote:
>> Seth Nickell wrote:
>>> Depends on what you mean by "fair," *wink*. RPM doesn't ask questions,
[...]
>> It was a rather good design decision, but also quite limiting.
> I agree with that assessment. Usability-wise the ability to configure
> packages through a standardized interface at the point you install them
> is, I think, a good thing. RPM side-stepped the bullet here, but I think
> the debconf approach will be better in the long run.
AOL!!
> On the flip side its allowed the development of graphical package
> managers for RedHat whereas Debian basically has no package management
> tool with decent usability.
[...]
Although RedHat's decision would allow the development of a decent
graphical package manager, this is imo still RedHat's greatest
weakness - RH is still missing a nice package installer with the
ability to resolve dependencies like YaST (SuSE) or dselect (sic!).
Gnorpm is still a pita.
cu andreas
--
Unofficial _Debian-packages_ of latest _tin_
http://www.logic.univie.ac.at/~ametzler/debian/tin-snapshot/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: