On 9/28/10, James Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28/09/10, 10:05:08, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote regarding > Re: [csw-maintainers] An idea for a shared libraries policy: > >> > These packages are only used as dependencies so the naming doesn't >> > have >> > to be appealing. No user should need to directly install a run time. >> > They should even be in the list offered to users, only the top level >> > names should be, like jpeg, python. > >> I guess you mean "They should NOT even be...". Very true. > > Correct. Sorry, brain and fingers not connected.
I would be very against the concept of 'disallowing' users to directly download any package conveniently through pkg-get or pkgutil. > Yes, it's a presentation thing. > Like the pkginfo flag CATEGORY: system|application. On the other hand, allowing users to CHOOSE to hide things, is another story. Top level users would probably much like the idea of "dont show me everything, just show me applications and utilities". it would hide a lot of "junk" to their eyes. That being said... if we're aiming for "pretty", we should probably aim for a "pretty GUI" front end for this sort of thing. Last time this topic came up, someone wanted to attempt to use someone else's work, and sort of tweak it for our purposes. But apparently that outside package management thing fizzled or something. We'd probably be better off with something "in-house". Then we could customise it to our needs better. Anyone with high-level GUI language skills? eg: TK, pyTK, or tcl, or (...) ? It should be a fairly trivial task. The biggest grunge is learning the GUI layer language, I think :) I once started a java wrapper for pkg-get, since I know the language already, but later decided java was going to be more work than I wanted to do at the time :-D _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
