dialog --editbox ??

rasat · 2007-12-20 13:20:28

'man dialog' says there is --editbox option but doesn't exist. Does it exist or I am missing something?

pressh · 2007-12-20 14:03:55

I think it is because dialog is compiled with the --disable-Xdialog flag, though I'm not sure. If you want a Xwindow interface you can use xdialog, but that is probably not what you're looking for ?

Gilneas · 2007-12-20 14:41:28

pressh is right. I downloaded the source and this is the result:

./configure
make
./dialog --editbox README 30 30
No problem (it's not an X window though, it's in the term)

./configure --disable-Xdialog
make
./dialog --editbox README 30 30
Error: Unexpected option --editbox.

edit: forgot the --editbox

Last edited by Gilneas (2007-12-20 14:54:24)

rasat · 2007-12-20 16:33:00

Did a test by compiling without --disable-Xdialog, works fine. Gives other options as well.

--calendar
--dselect
--editbox
--fselect
--timebox

I will post a feature request, asking if possible to change the package configure.
http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/8984

PS.
I am developing one xorg.conf editing feature for hwd.

pressh · 2007-12-20 17:45:46

rasat wrote:

PS.
I am developing one xorg.conf editing feature for hwd.

nice
you always have interesting ideas !

sm4tik · 2007-12-21 18:33:42

I guess it would've been more easy to check the package with abs (or however it is correctly said?). The PKGBUILDs tell you straight away how a package has been compiled, so no need to compile just to test And one can easily make changes to PKGBUILD and then just run makepkg with the new PKGBUILD. Hmm.. am I starting to sound like TV-SHOP here? "Does this look familiar? Has this ever happened to you?" I'm just reading what ever it says in the arch wiki

rasat · 2007-12-22 11:10:25

sm4tik wrote:

The PKGBUILDs tell you straight away how a package has been compiled, so no need to compile just to test

The compilation was not my interest when testing. But how editbox works. Also the other options. The question, is it worthy to compile without the flag. In my opinion, yes. Why limiting the options.

sm4tik · 2007-12-26 03:26:58

rasat wrote:

sm4tik wrote:
The PKGBUILDs tell you straight away how a package has been compiled, so no need to compile just to test
The compilation was not my interest when testing. But how editbox works. Also the other options. The question, is it worthy to compile without the flag. In my opinion, yes. Why limiting the options.

Oh sorry,
..no need to compile just to test if the binary in the repos has been compiled with a specific flag or not..
my reply was aimed mostly at Gilneas and partly for your original question "am I missing something?" I have to be more precise next time!

Last edited by sm4tik (2007-12-26 03:30:29)

iphitus · 2007-12-26 07:50:24

rasat wrote:

I am developing one xorg.conf editing feature for hwd.

why not use vim/nano rather than a clumsy edit box?

rasat · 2007-12-26 09:55:17

iphitus wrote:

why not use vim/nano rather than a clumsy edit box?

I also asked the same question. When putting myself in the shoes of less experienced linux users, especially in xorg, is a language by its own. xorg.conf is not easy to read without some experience.

'xorgconfig' and 'xorgcfg -textmode' (glad its back in the latest xorg-server again) do well when providing options and configs to select. With 'xorgconfig' you cannot post configure, only for new xorg.conf. Xorgcfg does, but what both are lacking you don't know what they do except seeing the end result of xorg.conf.

The hwd editor is similar to 'xorgcfg -textmode' dealing with each section separately but with an additional view window of the result. More options copied from Arch wiki (xorg). 'hwd -x' generates xorg.conf for different drivers, nice to have a menu list.

To use 'dialog --editbox' or vim/nano is a question of taste.

The editor is still a question, will be added only if does a good job.

Gilneas · 2007-12-26 15:16:43

sm4tik wrote:

I guess it would've been more easy to check the package with abs (or however it is correctly said?). The PKGBUILDs tell you straight away how a package has been compiled, so no need to compile just to test And one can easily make changes to PKGBUILD and then just run makepkg with the new PKGBUILD.

Surely my way was easier, no need to edit a PKGBUILD, the effects of the actual configure option were unknown so compilation was necessary, and it doesn't have to run 'make install' and a whole script around it.
It was also nice to be able to do a './configure --help' to see if there wasn't some sort of --enable-editbox option.

And, by the way, you can see the PKGBUILD online (don't need abs for that) (example)

Arch Linux

#1 2007-12-20 13:20:28

dialog --editbox ??

#2 2007-12-20 14:03:55

Re: dialog --editbox ??

#3 2007-12-20 14:41:28

Re: dialog --editbox ??

#4 2007-12-20 16:33:00

Re: dialog --editbox ??

#5 2007-12-20 17:45:46

Re: dialog --editbox ??

#6 2007-12-21 18:33:42

Re: dialog --editbox ??

#7 2007-12-22 11:10:25

Re: dialog --editbox ??

#8 2007-12-26 03:26:58

Re: dialog --editbox ??

#9 2007-12-26 07:50:24

Re: dialog --editbox ??

#10 2007-12-26 09:55:17

Re: dialog --editbox ??

#11 2007-12-26 15:16:43

Re: dialog --editbox ??

Board footer