Rudolf Kastl wrote: > The most important thing about the design is to keep really > "usability" in mind.. the layout itsself is rather unimportant in case > of a repo... the important stuff is the repo itssself, the packages, > bugzilla, and a configuration how to. all of those are rather obvious > already on the page. just my opinion as a long time 3rd party repo > owner. Yes... Usability report on the usability report ---------------------------------------- If the guy has had to go to his web browser at all for general package acquisition (other than perhaps to find a .repo file the once) then one can say this represents some kind of failure of the packaging system. A usability test on the site was meaningless in the context of packaging systems since that's not how packages are meant to be generally acquired. That goes double because picking up packages singly from a site like that invites -- causes -- rpm Hell where you have to run around finding all the dependencies by hand too. That is why a depsolver like yum exists, to avoid all this crap. Consider for example running a headless server as I and many people do with Fedora. yum is very usable in this context. For local GUI use there are things built on the relatively stable edifice of yum like yumex. There is a yum service that can autoupdate unattended. Hopefully you can see from this that while comments about usability can be helpful, even ignoring the flamebait this one is fated to be blown off because the terms of reference of it were useless to start with. Quite possibly 99% of the downloads from Livna are happening without the website being visited at all, and no doubt 99.9% of the package downloads (isos aside) from the general Fedora repos. If the guy wants to do Good in the world get him into a flamewar with the Gnome 'usability experts' instead, they need the help more :-) -Andy
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
