On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 09:07:10AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote: >From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>I wasn't expecting you to provide this. All that I wanted was >>clickable categories. I'll take care of providing an uber-category. >> >>FWIW, I was going to call it "Full" rather than "All" since you pointed >>out that there could be a time when there are mutually exclusive >>packages offered. > >I'm making it clickable as the next step. I'd done all the hard work >for multiple levels back in decemeber. We can twiddle this around >quite easily until it looks 'right' to the user.
I don't understand. Why is there an "All" there at all? The only thing that I've asked for, and have been asking for, is clickable categories. I wasn't asking for special "All" logic. I thought that that I had stressed this previously. I wasn't expecting anyone to try to add "All" logic to setup.exe. I thought you'd argued against that, in fact. It can be easily done by 'upset'. I don't even understand why we need multiple levels, at least at this point. We already had the ability to put one package in multiple categories. That's all that I was expecting. The Full category would just be a separate category with everything in it. Or, at least that's what I was proposing as a quick fix. It sounds like the new version of setup will have more functionality. I think it would have been nice (tm) if we could have released something like what I envisioned earlier. I thought that it was a relatively simple thing to do and that it would have cut back on some user confusion. cgf
