Gentoo Archives: gentoo-guis

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-guis@l.g.o
Cc: lists@××××××.eu
Subject: Re: [gentoo-guis] Why I don't like catapult
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:07:03
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-guis] Why I don't like catapult by "René 'Necoro' Neumann"
On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:58:18 +0200
René 'Necoro' Neumann <lists@××××××.eu> wrote:
> We just have a lack of a common base here. I can't see why these two > points are disjoint. The current API is already used for a GUI - and > works. The problem I see, is that you (and paludis) always want to be > a little bit more fancy and more complex.
We want to provide the functionality users need to get the job done.
> > Of the Paludis clients we've experimented with, the one that makes > > by far the most complex use of the API is the GUI client. This isn't > > merely because we can -- the only time a GUI becomes useful is when > > it offers functionality that can't easily be provided quickly by a > > non-GUI client. > > Nope - a GUI should provide things which are cumbersome using the > commandline. If a GUI offers things, that can't be done using CLI / > scripts - the CLI is bad.
Realistically, there are some potentially useful things that just don't map well onto a command line environment. Dynamic selection of || ( ) choices is a good example of this -- there's no sane way of offering it in a CLI, but in a GUI (or even in ncurses if you push it) it isn't too cumbersome.
> Your description is fancy ... _but_ the things you are describing is > an integrated GUI. It's on the same level the CLI is on. > This is nothing which is achievable with catapult (at least at the > moment). Catapult _uses_ the package manager and is not part of it. > Thus also the GUI would _use_ the PM.
And thus the GUI will end up delivering a half-arsed minimally functional toy. That isn't what users need.
> And as mentioned in my earlier mail, avoiding the exec() stuff and use > the manager itself is bad in my eyes for different reasons. And for > portage it won't work at all.
You could implement it for Portage by using exec() yourself...
> Thus - I still vote for providing the exec interface. It can be > dropped if a nicer solution is found later on. > > To sum up: I vote for the simple API - to get things done. It can be > enhanced later on.
To get what done? If the API can't be used to write a decent app, people are going to stick with the package manager APIs. -- Ciaran McCreesh


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-guis] Why I don't like catapult "René 'Necoro' Neumann" <lists@××××××.eu>