n00b prog

[badkarma]

If I were to write this program and I would use Qt the license would have to be GPL seeing as I don't have a commercial Qt license (well, not for myself at least)

[choasforages]

well, its all just conceptual right know, but i like the lgpl more then the gpl. i know its not the license of the purist but then agian, i was thinking that it should be seperated at the frontend/backend level, meaning that a library would have to be written, and what if a company wanted to use it for a project that wasn't opensource. it is tempting to put it under the bsd license, but i like the terms of the lgpl, becuase it avoids several problems like what happen with nusphere a few months ago i think

[TheQuirk]

err.. maybe that should be discussed when I atleast partially finish it?

[flap]

quote:i like the terms of the lgpl, becuase it avoids several problems like what happen with nusphere a few months ago i think

How was that a problem?

[TheQuirk]

It'll use Qt, and it'l be under the GPL. It's not going to be a library, but a stand alone applicaiton.

[voidmain]

Ya know yer going to have to pump out an curses/ncurses version as well don't you?  

[choasforages]

well, make it thou selve, i just think of this shit.

[sporkme]

the only problem i can see is that the newbs wont be able to install it without a graphical interface in the first place!

[TheQuirk]

I'll just include in the readme "For installation instructions, go to forum.fuckmicrosoft.com"          :rolleyes:

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by choasforages:
well, make it thou selve, i just think of this shit.

Naaa, I have no need for such a utility...

[DC]

quote:Originally posted by sporkme / bob:
the only problem i can see is that the newbs wont be able to install it without a graphical interface in the first place!

That's where distro's and friends are for.
OK, maybe they'll have problems with this, but installing *one* program by source/RPM and the rest by gui is easier than installing lots of 'em.

Anyway, 'bout the ./configure options: those are far from always the same, and the help provided with the files is usually quite arcane (that's the original problem). How do you present those in an orderly fashion if you can't even get a decent list?. Unless you're manually adding them to every packet available - if you do that I will praise you untill eternity (or untill you're finished - but that's the same).

[badkarma]

quote:Originally posted by DC:


That's where distro's and friends are for.
OK, maybe they'll have problems with this, but installing *one* program by source/RPM and the rest by gui is easier than installing lots of 'em.

Anyway, 'bout the ./configure options: those are far from always the same, and the help provided with the files is usually quite arcane (that's the original problem). How do you present those in an orderly fashion if you can't even get a decent list?. Unless you're manually adding them to every packet available - if you do that I will praise you untill eternity (or untill you're finished - but that's the same).

seeing the configure script is automatically generated, the options are presented in a (reasonably) coherent way, which means they are parsable by a regular expression, and to me it seems possible to isolate the configure options (I'll have a look at this maybe next weekend)

[sporkme]

the simpler solution would be to make the packages more installable, not the installer more complicated.

personally once i did it a coupla times it became easier than clicking. one step.  type it and it is (likely to be) right.

[choasforages]

i don't know, i just thought it up. im currently thinking of another cool idea that someone should do. www.nostatic.org/groove looks pretty sweet from the screen shots.