|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: XML settings file from settings_list.cRe: XML settings file from settings_list.c
From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_rockbox.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 19:44:51 +0100 (CET) On Wed, 13 Feb 2008, Dominik Riebeling wrote: > I see one big advantage: we could provide a nice interface and let users > select one of a bunch of "standard usecase" presets. Like "I want it similar > to Itunes / AppleOS" or "I don't want eyecandy" or such things. And Rockbox > Utility is the "housekeeping tool for Rockbox", isn't it? ;-) Personally, I find these reasons very weak. To me, Rbutil is about "do what you must and then get out of my face". I see very little use in expanding it to do evertything Rockbox can. And that's mainly because everything we cram into this will add to the maintainance burdon. Also, I must insist that these kinds of feeping creaturisms must be made entirely at the expense of the rbutil code and not making anything in the actual Rockbox code "worse". I don't know what use cases you guys have and what you do with your Rockbox targets, but I'll tell you that I fiddle with my settings very rarely and when I do change them I use Rockbox and I wouldn't dream of *ever* using Rbutil for it. I'm not saying I'm against you doing this, I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed any great use case for this. > About the settings itself: maybe it's a better idea to create the xml > file(s) using a perl script from the sources? You'll again end up with an interesting situation when you have an rbutil with stuff that depends on specific versions of Rockbox... -- Daniel Stenberg -- http://www.rockbox.org/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/Received on 2008-02-13 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |