On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 19:54 -0400, Dimi Paun wrote: > On Sat, 2006-04-15 at 16:17 +0100, Karl Lattimer wrote: > > > > I seriously doubt that as far as users are concerned that dependencies > > would be an issue, the user in general just wants something that > > works, and they don't care that 4 extra dependancies are required > > (python, gtk, pygtk, pygtk-glade) > > For what is worth, I personally think you've made the best choice of > tools for this project. The problem with the "least common denominator" > approaches is that you get a sub-par result. Don't let the rhetoric slow > you down. >
Thanks for your support ;) > As for the toolkit, you have a choice of 3: Gtk+, Qt, Win32. Problem > with Win32 is that you get an app that looks strange in both GNOME and > KDE The great thing is almost all of the back end stuff (except progress bar updates in the queue runner) are completely toolkit independent, if someone wants to write a win32 UI or a Qt UI and integrate it well into the interface, supply patches for testing then I'll happily accept them if they don't break GTK. I've even thought of a way of making the progress bar update code work across all UI's so there is easily scope for achieving this. Tomorrow I create a 'standard' for application packs, this is the archive of resources (scripts, reg files, icons, xml etc...) which make it easy to install windows applications and have them integrate nicely with gnome/kde. K,