Arthur Pemberton pisze:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Pekka Pietikainen<pp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 07:59:21PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> People who choose to do the development did it in whatever toolkit and
> language they preferred. Nothing is stopping you from duplicating that work
> in whatever toolkit you prefer or even porting Yast to Fedora but writing
> in one toolkit is not discriminating any desktop environment. It might not
> be ideal but works fine.
It's probably still worth checking out.
Worst case after lots of work the UI library forces some crappy subset of
Qt/GTK/text on all the config tools (Inherently such a library will always
limit what you can do with the UI) + extra bloat (since you'll still need
GTK or Qt)
Best case current functionality is kept (for little conversion work), people
get their native UI look and we get a kick-ass text UI as a bonus.
Reality? Something in the middle, I'm sure ;)
--
Pekka Pietikainen
Maybe I am the one who is confused, but from what I read at the link,
they decoupled the GUI from the C++ library which did the actual work,
the idea being so that others could write new GUIs and just plug in to
the library.
You guys are talking like it's the other way around, there is no
subset of widgets or anything of the sort. Aside from the fact that I
think the backend code for manipulating config files should be in a
transparent scripting language, I don't see how Yast would help.
YaST has nothing to do here. UI library was separated from YaST, and
it's all about.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
