GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

xerxes2 · 2004-06-01 18:41:25

StratoS wrote:

anyhow, when will the gtk/gnome port be done.

I want one too. Here is a little idea for the GTK fans.

Dusty wrote:

I meant to disagree with this, but I forgot. I don't want to count! I'm opinionated, see, and it would be so hard for me to act mature and ignore stuff like you true developers do. I'm just a documentor.

Maybe it's time for you then to start working for your title.
Documenters are devs too, aren't they? :?

standsolid · 2004-06-01 19:08:30

apeiro wrote:

You've got my blessing, standsolid.

Thanks! That means a lot!

xerxes2 wrote:

StratoS wrote:
anyhow, when will the gtk/gnome port be done.
I want one too. Here is a little idea for the GTK fans.

I want to see some of those skins....

aCoder wrote:

Hey! Let's get back to the real issue here: How do I get this app that tells me how to make swiss cheese?

There is this awesome program called Windows... It has a way of making holes out of nowhere. Maybe it can help with your hole-y cheese?

//standsolid//

Zephirias · 2004-06-01 19:11:31

standsolid wrote:

There is this awesome program called Windows... It has a way of making holes out of nowhere. Maybe it can help with your hole-y cheese?
//standsolid//

My feelings on that statement can be summed up in the following:

Dusty · 2004-06-01 19:36:36

Zephirias wrote:

standsolid wrote:
There is this awesome program called Windows... It has a way of making holes out of nowhere. Maybe it can help with your hole-y cheese?
//standsolid//
My feelings on that statement can be summed up in the following:

For once I agree with Zephirias! :lol::lol:

aCoder · 2004-06-02 03:21:39

I, too, must admit that there is no better expression in this situation...

However, I did give Windows XP a try for a while, and it did in fact make plenty of holes, but they were in my network, not my cheese... :cry:

Dusty · 2004-06-02 04:09:23

aCoder wrote:

However, I did give Windows XP a try for a while, and it did in fact make plenty of holes, but they were in my network, not my cheese... :cry:

Maybe you should try the new "TCP over Cheddar" protocols on Windows XP?

Dusty

rasat · 2004-06-02 05:06:14

RTF wrote:

....I would find it especially helpful in browsing through packages, seeing if there's something I might be interested in. Finding information is probably the weakest point of all CLIs, and that goes for Pacman as well; anything except a targeted search becomes tedious.

I agree. I would use a gui for browsing. Same I did with Gentoo, CLI for day-to-day work but gui when checking for installed portages in a particular category, what portages were available, and whenever needed for mass removal of portages. When this type of browsing (gui) was not available in Arch, I made my own tools.

Here is a link (screenshots) to have an idea how packages could be browse / viewed in gui:
http://amlug.net/new-projects/pkgsweepe … eeper.html

Dusty · 2004-06-02 14:53:04

Jacked wrote:

Sure, "pacman -Ss" is simple enough, but when you get several matches and want to quickly skim the package descriptions, a GUI is going to be faster.

Unless you know how to use grep, awk, or other simple pattern matching tools.

Dusty

Mr Green · 2004-06-02 15:15:53

ahhh I see you want a GUI wrapper for grep....

A damn big search button.....

Mr Green

standsolid · 2004-06-02 19:34:53

Jacked wrote:

Here's a modified mock-up illustrating what I'm talking about:
PS. I couldn't find Photoshop here at home, so I had to try my very first go at The Gimp. I must say, I'm impressed with it!

Definitely something like that. I was also thinking of having checkboxes as well as buttons for such installs. (for things like No deps and what-not.)

/me shrugs

Good gimping btw!

//standsolid//

aCoder · 2004-06-02 20:31:43

If an attempt to remove a package results in a warning about dependencies, gracefully refuse to comply (with a message about the dep). Don't give the option to force removal, leave that to the CLI and people that would (more likely) understand the issues involved.

I think a pacman GUI should be powerful enough that everything can be done from it. If you're really worried, just ask confirmation before a forced anything, and be sure the message clearly points out all of the implications.

standsolid · 2004-06-02 20:35:36

aCoder wrote:

I think a pacman GUI should be powerful enough that everything can be done from it. If you're really worried, just ask confirmation before a forced anything, and be sure the message clearly points out all of the implications.

right, what this use in having the GUI at all if you have to just go and open the console anyway.

StratoS · 2004-06-02 22:42:31

xerxes2 wrote:

StratoS wrote:
anyhow, when will the gtk/gnome port be done.
I want one too. Here is a little idea for the GTK fans.
Dusty wrote:
I meant to disagree with this, but I forgot. I don't want to count! I'm opinionated, see, and it would be so hard for me to act mature and ignore stuff like you true developers do. I'm just a documentor.
Maybe it's time for you then to start working for your title.
Documenters are devs too, aren't they? :?

If you are planning to make a GTK GUI, i sugest that it is proebebly better to hook up with the QT pacman person, and simply make a shared code base that can use either of both GUI's.
It would be more work in the bginning, but less so in the ending.

xerxes2 · 2004-06-02 22:58:34

standsolid wrote:

aCoder wrote:
I think a pacman GUI should be powerful enough that everything can be done from it. If you're really worried, just ask confirmation before a forced anything, and be sure the message clearly points out all of the implications.
right, what this use in having the GUI at all if you have to just go and open the console anyway.

He he ..now we are talking..

StratoS wrote:

If you are planning to make a GTK GUI, i sugest that it is proebebly better to hook up with the QT pacman person, and simply make a shared code base that can use either of both GUI's.
It would be more work in the beginning, but less so in the ending.

I've never coded a line in my life more than webstuff. This is just a few lines of Python that I put together. The syncbutton works.he he.:) but it's better if a real hacker do it. Someone who knows Python could finish the work in a few hours.

Dusty · 2004-06-03 00:44:41

standsolid wrote:

right, what this use in having the GUI at all if you have to just go and open the console anyway.

Why go to the trouble of writing a GUI when all you have to do is go and open a console anyway?

On my system, its a lot of work to open the console, you press F2. But I could make it Win-C, maybe, then I wouldn't have to move my fingers from the home row... hmmm. I'll have to think about it.

Dusty

sarah31 · 2004-06-03 15:31:13

Dusty wrote:

standsolid wrote:
right, what this use in having the GUI at all if you have to just go and open the console anyway.
Why go to the trouble of writing a GUI when all you have to do is go and open a console anyway?
On my system, its a lot of work to open the console, you press F2. But I could make it Win-C, maybe, then I wouldn't have to move my fingers from the home row... hmmm. I'll have to think about it.
Dusty

or why they would proceed when they have been told by developers that it will be way better to wait for pacman to be libidized.

oh well tis a silly project anyway.

standsolid · 2004-06-03 18:11:03

sarah31 wrote:

or why they would proceed when they have been told by developers that it will be way better to wait for pacman to be libidized.
oh well tis a silly project anyway.

oh, you're just bitter

I do have the blessing of apeiro for the go-ahead...

apeiro wrote:

You've got my blessing, standsolid.

besides, it will be a trivial, delightful conversion from my CLI interpreter to lib frontend. The real work is the usability of the front-end IMO. It's tough to make things easy and apparent. But because the pacman CLI is so simple, sending commands, and interpreting through a GUI will be fun regexp work.

StratoS wrote:

If you are planning to make a GTK GUI, i sugest that it is proebebly better to hook up with the QT pacman person, and simply make a shared code base that can use either of both GUI's.
It would be more work in the bginning, but less so in the ending.

the only trouble here is that all this code will be very much Qt/KDE oritented. Theonly work together I can think of is researching and then sharing similar interfaces... and perhaps reg exps. it also seems the GTK one (As it is now) is based on python, and my Qt one will be C++.

I'm rambling and am at work so ta for now
//standsolid//

//standsolid//

standsolid · 2004-06-17 19:24:05

I've been very busy with work and such lately. I have been going through some personal changes (broke up w/ girlfriend of 2+ years), and my band is starting to so a lot more stuff together, busy times for a poor 19 year old

But, i do squeeze in time for development. Check out my idea:

I have a widget I am making that will be the central Package Information widget. It is slimilar to my original screenshot, but I've thought the design/implementation through a bit.

This "package information" widget will be used not only in the pacman search frontend, but if you download a package from, let's say, a tur, and you want to just view details about it, a dialog with JUST the package information widget will be available.

here's screenshot/mock-ups
http://www.standsolid.com/arch_forums/s … -61704.png
http://www.standsolid.com/arch_forums/s … -61704.png
http://www.standsolid.com/arch_forums/s … -61704.png
EDIT: changed to links in compliance w/ sarah_31... harsh overlord of the arch forums

(sorry for not putting false information, and the bad quality of the mock-ups, but i'm at work and am using a VNC conenction with a small lunch break)

The three tabs of the widget displayed will get information by using pacman -Qii or similar. this is not a complete example, but you can see where I am going.

What do y'all think? of the shots?

//standsolid//

P.S. I adapted my old gentoo "updatewhat" magical regex string to work with pacman a bit (proof-of-concept for myself), and this front-end is VERY do-able. even easier and faster than using portage. I bet when the library for pacman is out, it will be even quicker.
Unfortunately, looking at my code, I really approched it the wrong way, an will take some snippets from the code I have written, but will basically start from scratch, hopefully implementing things correctly this time.

Zephirias · 2004-06-17 20:52:17

Looks great. Nice work so far.

iotc247 · 2004-06-19 15:11:40

Is there a working version yet?

punkrockguy318 · 2004-06-19 15:50:23

Looks nice! Wish it was in gtk though. Maybe I'll make a gtk2 pacman front-end when pacman is libraryized.

standsolid · 2004-06-19 23:16:38

Viklund wrote:

standsolid wrote:
The three tabs of the widget displayed will get information by using pacman -Qii or similar. this is not a complete example, but you can see where I am going.
Hmm, grok the info from the filesystem instead, goes much faster and you only have to read the info once, otherwise it's ok, (i've done half of a program myself actually, more to learn python than enything else (it's hard to learn when used to the Perl way)).

Well this is basically the way Gentoo did it -- and portage is NOT FAST.

I'm using pacman commands so that when I do have a library, It won't be much of a code change (hopefully).

//standsolid//

(P.S. no work or band today, i'm putting some time into this)

sarah31 · 2004-06-19 23:59:30

standsolid wrote:

oh, you're just bitter

i am not bitter i have nothing to be bitter about. i just think a gui to pacman is dumb and ultimately creates more work for people that actually know their system.

the only trouble here is that all this code will be very much Qt/KDE oritented. Theonly work together I can think of is researching and then sharing similar interfaces... and perhaps reg exps. it also seems the GTK one (As it is now) is based on python, and my Qt one will be C++.

therein lies the problems with gui tools. if people want your gui they may be forced to swallow things they don't want. while i do have qt installed i sure as hell would prefer NOT to have it installed. as much as i want to run celestia again i sure hell don't want kde stuff on my system. gtk may not be preety but it does not force you to swallow big bloated packages. C++ is also brutal to deal with.

oh and could you just post links to images from now on. for me it does not really matter because i have a dsl connection but for those on dial up it takes time to load images as is to have to load images that are in a post is even more of a hassle.

famavolat · 2004-06-20 02:39:36

sarah31 wrote:

standsolid wrote:
oh, you're just bitter
i am not bitter i have nothing to be bitter about. i just think a gui to pacman is dumb and ultimately creates more work for people that actually know their system.

the only trouble here is that all this code will be very much Qt/KDE oritented. Theonly work together I can think of is researching and then sharing similar interfaces... and perhaps reg exps. it also seems the GTK one (As it is now) is based on python, and my Qt one will be C++.
therein lies the problems with gui tools. if people want your gui they may be forced to swallow things they don't want. while i do have qt installed i sure as hell would prefer NOT to have it installed. as much as i want to run celestia again i sure hell don't want kde stuff on my system. gtk may not be preety but it does not force you to swallow big bloated packages. C++ is also brutal to deal with.
oh and could you just post links to images from now on. for me it does not really matter because i have a dsl connection but for those on dial up it takes time to load images as is to have to load images that are in a post is even more of a hassle.

Hold on hold on now...

I just have to ask, if there was a pacman GUI... what would keep you or anyone else from using the CLI? This is what I don't understand. If both exist then it will just be a different strokes for different folks type deal. :?
Right?

IMHO, I think it will be good to have both. I like having a CLI and a GUI for somethings at different times. It just all depends on how I feel.

punkrockguy318 · 2004-06-20 02:48:58

sarah31 wrote:

standsolid wrote:
oh, you're just bitter
i am not bitter i have nothing to be bitter about. i just think a gui to pacman is dumb and ultimately creates more work for people that actually know their system.

the only trouble here is that all this code will be very much Qt/KDE oritented. Theonly work together I can think of is researching and then sharing similar interfaces... and perhaps reg exps. it also seems the GTK one (As it is now) is based on python, and my Qt one will be C++.
therein lies the problems with gui tools. if people want your gui they may be forced to swallow things they don't want. while i do have qt installed i sure as hell would prefer NOT to have it installed. as much as i want to run celestia again i sure hell don't want kde stuff on my system. gtk may not be preety but it does not force you to swallow big bloated packages. C++ is also brutal to deal with.
oh and could you just post links to images from now on. for me it does not really matter because i have a dsl connection but for those on dial up it takes time to load images as is to have to load images that are in a post is even more of a hassle.

No one is making you, or anyone else use this GUI tool. Choice is good!

How is this GUI tool creating more work for people that know their system? I don't quite understand. If someone knows their system, they probobly know all the pacman commands, and commands like grep, and they probobly won't even use the tool. This isn't targeted towards people that hate GUIs, love the command line, know everything about linux, and know their system inside out.

Arch Linux

#76 2004-06-01 18:41:25

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#77 2004-06-01 19:08:30

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#78 2004-06-01 19:11:31

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#79 2004-06-01 19:36:36

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#80 2004-06-02 03:21:39

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#81 2004-06-02 04:09:23

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#82 2004-06-02 05:06:14

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#83 2004-06-02 14:53:04

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#84 2004-06-02 15:15:53

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#85 2004-06-02 19:34:53

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#86 2004-06-02 20:31:43

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#87 2004-06-02 20:35:36

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#88 2004-06-02 22:42:31

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#89 2004-06-02 22:58:34

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#90 2004-06-03 00:44:41

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#91 2004-06-03 15:31:13

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#92 2004-06-03 18:11:03

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#93 2004-06-17 19:24:05

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#94 2004-06-17 20:52:17

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#95 2004-06-19 15:11:40

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#96 2004-06-19 15:50:23

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#97 2004-06-19 23:16:38

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#98 2004-06-19 23:59:30

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#99 2004-06-20 02:39:36

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

#100 2004-06-20 02:48:58

Re: GUI pacman? [update: new screenshots on page 7]

Board footer