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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
