[Installit-dev] TreeView/TreeModel implementation

Jannis Pohlmann info at sten-net.de
Mon Oct 10 19:07:22 CEST 2005


Hiho,

Johannes Zellner schrieb:
> Hola
> 
> 
>>I wrote down some thoughts on the TreeModel/TreeView implementation we
>>will use for InstallIt on
>> 
>>
> 
> --- cut ---
> 
> 
>>This means that the group Xfce 4.2. 2 and the packages thunar and
>>libxfcegui4 have been enabled explicitely by the user.
>>
>>* If you disable the group Xfce 4.2.2 now, libxfcegui4 (which is p
>> part of it) won’t be disabled. If you enable one of the members of
>> Xfce 4.2.2 afterwards, this will only enable the group explicitely.
>> All members are enabled implicitely.
>> 
>>
> 
> Hm my opinion is, that if a user diables/enables a group the child-items 
> will be disabled/enabled too.
> But we should popup a dialog that reminds the User of this actions.

Yes, that was what I had in mind, too. But ... this would be difficult
to handle, that's why I'm going to drop groups in favour of meta packages.

> 
> 
>>* The package thunar is enabled. As it depends on libexo you can safely
>> assume that libexo is also enabled (but since it wasn’t explicitely
>> enabled it’s not in the list). Disabling thunar will disable libexo
>> for you, too. If libexo would have been enabled explicitely, it would
>> not be disabled.
>> 
>>
> 
> Hm I think we should keep it simple and leave a bit more work on the user.
> (some clicks more won't be too mad and then the user really knows what 
> InstallIt will do)
> 
> So we could provide a Warning-list in the main window.
> Every  not solved dependency puts a warning in this list.
> (a dialog-prompt instead of a new listitem will be very confusing 
> because you have no real overview)

See above for the change from groups to meta packages. This will make
such a list obsolete. But a nice feature would be to provide a solution
for detecting installed but orphaned packages. Orphaned in this case
means that no other packages depend on it. Often, if you select a meta
package, lots of dependencies are selected, too. But if you deselect the
meta package again, none of the dependencies is deselected (that's how
Apt/Synaptic behaves).

Popping up a (rememberable) question whether to deselect dependencies
when deselecting a meta package or not should be fine, at least from the
short-term view.

> And if a dependecy of a package is not in the packagelist, we could show 
> this in the list.
> This reminds the user to handle this on his own.

I'd prefer to print a warning in the install wizard before performing
the first action on the package, like:

  Hey, some of the dependencies of <package> could not be resolved from
  <mirror>. Maybe you have to install them manually before performing
  the installation.

  <unresolved dependency 1>
  <unresolved dependency 2>
  ...

  Do you really want to continue?

              					      < NO >   < YES >

That should be ok, don't you think?

Regards,
Jannis



More information about the Installit-dev mailing list