<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 23 Oct 2002, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > > > Danny Tholen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > It doesn't fit well, I do agree. And I don't really see the point > > of searching between installed and installable packages. > > Guillaume, I really do not know how to convince you on this one. I'll try > anyways: > You might not see the point, users do. And isn't that what counts?
That counts, but I don't agree with the axiom "because users want it, we do it". Sometimes we don't agree and we don't do it. I have to agree to do it. > Although I do like the new interface in general, there is a certain > amount of insatisfaction with rpmdrake. And, IMO, not all of this is just > because the change to a new program. I think there are some features > missing. In my previous message I gave an example of the usefullness of > searching in installed/not-installed packges. It wasn't an example, or I didn't understand it. If the point was really to have "some way of searching for a package when I don't know if it is installed or not", I personally do "rpm -qa package*", people can do it with rpmdrake or rpmdrake-remove I suppose? > Perhaps I can ask Deno to get a poll on the club about this; > will you do the change if 70% wants this feature? If not, I do not know > perl, but I'll try to hack it in there anyways, (over x-mas or so:). And > put in on the club for download. It would be quite easy to add it to the code of the installing package version, but the main problem is how does it integrate with the UI? If you can provide a good design I do agree with, I'll add it. A good design requires that we don't add any other visible UI element. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
