Richard Hughes <hughsient <at> gmail.com> writes: > You think we NEED a "KDE Software Development group". PackageKit is not > designed for you. Can you explain how having fine grained groups would > help people like: http://www.packagekit.org/pk-profiles.html ? Well, at least the med student could have a use for a "medical applications" group (which I'm aware does not currently exist, but that's not PackageKit's problem ;-) ), if not now, at least in the future. And you have only 3 profiles, that's a pretty small sample of all the users around, I'm sure there are many more users with needs for at least one specialized group (with the end result that _all_ specialized groups are needed). > PackageKit is not designed for the sort of users who are comfortable > using yum on the command line. PackageKit doesn't replace yum, it's just > complimentary. Power users can benefit a lot from a UI which is designed with them in mind. I don't consider this "design for newbies only, power users can just use the command line" premise helpful. > If we designed PK as a "suitable for any user" tool then > it would be suitable for no-one. Hence the need for a profiles page. That's an assumption which has yet to be proven. For example, KDE aims at being usable both by new users and by power users and is IMHO fairly successful at that. And another issue is that the library design doesn't allow making a more powerful UI on top of the same library, because the "simple" groups are hardcoded and there's no API to get to the actual groups. Even if we accept your premise that a package manager for power users necessarily has to be a different application, it would still be nice to be able to build it on the same library. Reinventing the wheel to work around library limitations would be a big waste. For example, KPackageKit could potentially be that "more powerful UI" if the library allowed it. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
