Re: Context menus
Hi,
>>"Behan" == Behan Webster <behanw@verisim.com> writes:
Behan> btw, just to remind you, in this new interface, there is no
Behan> distinction between remove and purge (I've always found that
Behan> distinction confusing). They are both the same in deity. All
Behan> that happens is that on a remove/purge, the confiles are stored
Behan> in /var/backup/dpkg/<package> and if the package is ever
Behan> reinstalled, the old conf files can be recovered from there.
I think that this may be going beyond Deities domain a
bit. Deosn't dpkg diffretiate between the two? Since there is a
difference in the underlying mechanism, I think it is wrong for a
user interface to remove it in the name of simplicity (I hate
microsoft).
If you think that this is wrong, then this should be brought
to the light of day, possibly on debian-devel, or in a mail message
to the dpkg-maintainers, bruce, and a few others (I prefer
debian-devel).
I don't think that this should be designed and implemeted, and
presented to the project as a fait accompli.
Behan> Now since we seem to first be building a wrapper around the
Behan> current dpkg, I suggest these changes be requested of dpkg, but
Behan> I still think that deity should work towards a common backend
Behan> library that handles all things and deity and dpkg be simply
Behan> possible front ends to this library.
Hmmm. In that case, again, I thnk the design should be opened
a bit more, at least the current dpkg designers should be included in
this group.
Behan> I like dpkg as a command line tool, but as the backend to a
Behan> more complicated GUI (in design, not useability), dpkg stinks!
Behan> Building special GUI support funcions into a command-line tool
Behan> is rediculous. Although for the first version it seems that is
Behan> what we are faced with.
Yesss, I think so. Actually, I think if we are going to go
beyond a interface, into redesign of things, people should be
forewarned (or else there is likely to be a firestorm when we unveil
this. )
I'm sorry, I think I differ in my opinion about the level of
isolation of the design process. I think that we _have_ erred on the
side of secrecy in the past, and we'd get a more sympathetic hearing
than people apprehend. Also, we are discovering things that need to
be fixed/enhanced in the package management system, and these should
be forwarded to the people that are managing that.
We tried initially to make Deity into a full fledged package
management system, and were told to limit ourselves to a user
interface module (if I recall the evnets clearly). I think we should
not go beyond without notifying other people.
On the gripping hand, though, I am the newest member of the
team, and may be getting to big for my britches. If ia have
misunderstood the tenor of your message, please feel free to put me
in my place ;-).
manoj
--
Come... Dry your eyes, for you are life, rarer than a quark and
unpredictable beyond the dreams of Heisenberg; the clay in which the
forces that shape all things leave their fingerprints most
clearly. Dry your eyes...And let's go home. Watchmen
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: