At 18:37 Uhr -0400 14.04.2002, Dave Vasilevsky wrote: > >>Now I'd like to hear what others say. Why is it so important that we >>have a FinkCommand package? Why is a GUI so important? Do people that >>use stuff like Fink really have to have a GUI, for things that they >>have from the command line in the end? > >Ok, well I already said why I think a GUI is necessary.
You did? Where? :-) > Basically, it gives the user a clue. Sure, we could add a >--check-unstable flag so that unstable packages would be installed >if a stable package is unavailable. Or a >--dont-annoy-busy-maintainer-with-feedback-warning-designed-for-users >flag <g>. But the idea of a GUI is that it lets the user just dive >into Fink, without forcing us to dumb down the command line >interface. Ideally, we could create small "installer" applications, >so that CLI-hating users can just download "Galeon" from >Versiontracker double-click, and everything (installing Fink, >installing FC, installing Galeon and deps) happens automagically. You mean like a tiny installer that installs Fink if it's not there already, installs XDarwin if it's not there, etc. etc., and then finally install galeon? Uhm... erhm. well. Doesn't sound very convincing to me... >By the way, why assume that Fink apps are used "from the command >line in the end"? For example, I patched OroborOSX so it scans which >Fink packages I have installed, and creates a "Fink" menu listing >the appropriate GUI apps--select one and it launches. (Sorry, the >patch isn't fit for release yet and is out of date. If anybody wants >a look anyway, tell me and I'll put it online.) I think it's likely >that either FC will eventually include such a feature, or that there >will be some other way of accomplishing the same thing. How many >RedHat users really launch Mozilla from the CLI every time, hm? How many Mac OS users will use Fink's Mozilla, considering there are various native versions? :-) But seriously, I am not opposed to a GUI *atop* Fink. I just don't see why it would be an integral part. You can use RPM or Debian without their GUI tools, too. > >>I know there are maybe a few >>cases, but is the majority of Fink users really going to need it? Why >>is it so much better to have this a Fink package instead of a >>seperate download? > >Ah, that's the clincher. I *do* think a Fink GUI is needed, and that >integration between Fink and the GUI is needed, but I *don't* think >it should be a Fink package. Users will want to move FC wherever >they want, but that will break Fink. Then we fully agree here. I think having some GUI frontend for Fink is a good thing, but I don't think it should be a Fink package, too :-) >However, there are other things that can be done to make a GUI more >accessible. Many of these are the responsibility of FC. Binaries of >FC should definitely be released, and it should be announced on >-users and -beginners, for sure. What I said :-) > As for some of the issues that Martin brought up: > >- It's true that having to install Fink and then install FC can be >tedious. Perhaps it would be better if instead of solving this on >Fink's end (with a FC package), we solve it on FC's end. It's not >complicated to automatically install Fink, I believe I sent Stephen >a short script I wrote a while ago which does just that. In fact we already have a disk image that has an GUI installer for Fink. It should be simple enough to combine this with installing FC. Like, having a FC installer, and a FC-full installer that also contains Fink. I'd be happy to work together with Stephan to make this possible. > >- Having FC respond to Fink's updates isn't hard. Users would be >expected to perform Fink updates through FC anyhow, in which case FC >could interrupt and update itself if needed. Otherwise, FC can just >check for updates upon launch; WikiWiki-cocoadev has some code to >check for online status here: ><http://www.cocoadev.com/index.pl?CheckingOnlineStatus>. That was my thought as well. Seems we are of a same mind in this regard :-) >However, there are things I'd like the Fink project to do to >encourage GUI development. We can, and ought to, put a link to FC on >the installing Fink page, or even on the home page once FC is more >stable. This goes for any other GUIs that pop up, as well. Of course! Nobody mentioned this yet, that's about the only reason why it's not done. Just tell me where you want the links, and I'll do it (or send me diffs for our website XML). >Also, we should discuss some of the things that are needed from Fink >for GUI development, like a debconf-ish system for alerts, and a way >for Fink to call-back to an alternate front-end. These are some of >those things which are harder to do the longer we wait, so I think >they're at least worth discussing. I don't think they will get harder anytime soon (they would if Fink would change very fast, but currently it's not), but I have no problem helping with that. I am just not that much interested in working on the GUI myself, and I don't feel responsible to do such work, but I am supporting it. >Anyhow, I think this rant is long enough now. I realize that my >goals in participating in Fink are not those of everyone else (and >don't think that 'cause you know one of them, you know them all ;-). >I look forward to hearing what other people have to say. Cheers, Max -- ----------------------------------------------- Max Horn Software Developer email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> phone: (+49) 6151-494890 _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
