On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 01:47:20PM +0200, Marcel Hilzinger wrote: > > And > > implementing it both for X and curses would be a duplication of effort > > already put into sw_single. > It's not so simple. While all other YaST modules have the same code for > command line and GUI, the package manager is almost coded twice (YaST > developers please correct me, if I'm wrong). This means, that yast on console > is additional work.
If that is the case, then coding should change in such a way that the developers only have to code once, like they do with other YaST modules. > > I seriously disagree with the idea that a full-featured, quasi-graphical > > package manager that works without X is superfluous. > Did you use apt or smart? I never used yast on command line any more, when I > got used to them. So I see no need for yast package manager in console mode. I use it on a semi-regurlar basis. e.g. when I ssh to my machine, I am using YaST in console. It looks like something I know. It gives me the full power of YaST. > Btw: Handle YaST in console mode is not as trivial, as it might seem. So new > users eighter do not know about it at all or if the know, they will have > problems to use the module. It is also not so difficult so that users are not aware of how to use it. The only real problem I see is that a new user might not know that he needs to use the [TAB] to go from box to box. Furthermore a new user is normally not using theconsole mode. If he needs the console mode, he is still better off then without the console mode and just using command line. -- houghi http://houghi.org http://www.plainfaqs.org/linux/ http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html > > Today I went outside. My pupils have never been tinier... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
