On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 10:28 -0600, Stephen J. Smoogen wrote: > On 8/1/05, Tomas Mraz <tmraz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm in process of refactoring and rewriting authconfig > > (alias system-config-authentication). > > > > The first step is rewriting most of the C code in Python. This should > > allow much easier extensibility and refactoring possibilities. > > > > I'd like to drop the Newt text UI from authconfig. The main reason isn't > > the Python rewrite but future improvements which I'd like to do only in > > GUI. The TUI has limited possibilities (especially the usable screen > > size as it must be designed for 80x24 terminals). > > > > This wouldn't mean that authconfig won't be usable without X display > > because there still remains the command line interface with -- > > enable/disable options, which is IMO much more useful for experienced > > sysadmins. > > > > Well I do not have serious objections.. but I have found that the tui > was much easier to use for most of my limited needs. Having a well > documented command line tool though would be equivalent. I would also > suggest that this be documented in a wider audience so it doesnt show > up as the usual flame war about RH not telling anyone but a select > audience what they are planning. It will instead be a flame-war about > no TUI's for remote administration. > > By the way, I have to write a bunch of python TUI's at my secure > undisclosed location.. what would be the best packages to look at for > pointers on doing this? I use authconfig in %post of kickstarts to setup things w/o having to manually intervene. I don't care so much about the tui but I would hope a scriptable/single-command option would be available w/o the need for the X interface. -sv