Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
>
> > If that's given, then bbkeys will launch its own configuration program,
> > bbkeysConfigC (written in straight C) inside an xterm, lowering the
> > "external gotta have" from qt2.x to "xterm". Now, I realize that maybe
> > not everybody will have xterm installed on their box, but I think far more
> > people have xterm installed than have the dependency met for libqt
> > (especially with non-linux installations).
> >
>
> I install rxvt's (-:
>
> > So as for the "something useful" request, in my mind, I've coded as much
> > as I can around the "how come it doesn't do anything when I click the
> > little keyhole" user complaint as I can. I'm still of the opinion that
> > bbkeysconf should be moved to a separate package and a "bbkeys suggests
> > bbkeysconf" association set up between the two. However, I understand
> > your position too, as being a point of contact for "hey, duh, how come it
> > doesn't do anything when I click the little keyhole button" questions.
> >
>
> what would be nice is:
>
> if qt tool exists
> use qt tool
> else if console tool exists
> try to use it
> else
> bah
>
> truth is most people I have talked to want the gui tool, I think the users who
> complain is around 5 or 10%.
>
going back to the minimalist's standpoint, i personally prefer the
console/xterm method, but certainly understand that others prefer the qt
method. i support having bbkeysconf and bbkeys being separate progs;
should one choose not to install any config prog, one can still hand
edit the config file. seems like a more manageable/modular approach to
me. just my thoughts. as far as i'm concerned, it's all great work.
thanks for everything :-)
> > Isn't there a law somewhere saying you're allowed to smack people in the
> > back of the head when they don't read the author's README's?
> >
>
> yeah well .....
