Re: graphical apt, trials and tribulations
Seth Nickell wrote:
> Depends on what you mean by "fair," *wink*. RPM doesn't ask questions,
> which is perhaps a missing feature because you just get this glob on
> your disk with no idea what to do next, but it also makes it feasible
> for good graphical package managers to exist. It may have been accident
> on their part, it may have been design decision, I don't know.
It was a rather good design decision, but also quite limiting.
> Right now the ability to make a graphical apt is more like a theoretical
> feature. libapt was designed to accomodate this, but nobody has done the
> library fixes necessary to make it work right. In my experience, any
> time you have a theoretical but largely untested feature there's going
> to have to be some change to make it actually work right. If you look at
> most of the graphical installers for debian out there they have a long
> series of horrible hacks and bad interfaces brought on by what would be
> fairly simple changes to the library APIs (and policy or packages).
We're well on our way toward all interacton being done by debconf. It's
not quite yet a policy violation to not use it, but those who don't get
requests and patches and bug reports to do so. I think that once we're
migrated, we will throughly trounce rpm in this area.
http://auric.debian.org/~joeyh/debconf-stats/
--
see shy jo
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gtk-gnome-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: