On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 10:13:56PM -0700, Brian Dessent wrote: > Harold L Hunt II wrote: > > > Would it be possible to hide the ZZZRemovedPackages category when in > > Category view, without changing the dependency logic regarding this > > category? > > Yes, in fact I've been meaning to bring this up. In terms of the end > user, there should be no reason at all for them to see those packages, > and I think it would be a good idea in general to remove them from sight > entirely. > > The only worry I have is that if someone still has an ancient version of > a package installed, they would no longer see it even though it's > installed. Of course, if they just ran setup and accepted all the > defaults they would get the new version of the package, without having > to see them to select them. But I do wonder about those users (and I > know they're out there) that insist on running 3 year old versions of > some packages. > > I was thinking about making it a checkbox at the bottom of the dialog, > that said "Hide obsolete packages" and defaults to checked. If the user > unchecks it they would get the same display they get now.
IMO it's less visual clutter just to show the category than to add a checkbox. Automatically unhide it if the user has anything other than the current version of any of the packages? > > Also, would it be possible to sort this category to the bottom of the > > list in all other views and ignore it when calculating the width to use > > for the Categories column? Currently the Categories column is too wide > > and scrunches the Package column because of the length of the > > ZZZRemovedPackages category name. If this is really a big issue, maybe make it "ZZZRemoved" instead? There aren't all that many hint files to change. > That would be another way of doing it. I'm not sure how easy or hard it > would be to make them sort down to the bottom though. And I'd prefer to > get rid of them entirely.
