| 1 |
Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o> said: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Thursday 28 August 2003 10:08, dams@g.o wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Spider <spider@g.o> said: |
| 5 |
>> > begin quote |
| 6 |
>> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:22:51 +0200 |
| 7 |
>> > |
| 8 |
>> > dams@×××.fr wrote: |
| 9 |
>> >> * What is desktop : |
| 10 |
>> >> desktop would be the project responsible of the desktop part of gentoo |
| 11 |
>> >> Linux, without making global decision, like : should we build a |
| 12 |
>> >> special product for desktop, should we have a modified install, should |
| 13 |
>> >> we restrict some possibility to default... |
| 14 |
>> > |
| 15 |
>> > I'm quite against this turn of development as it will split our meager |
| 16 |
>> > develpomentteam even further and direct resources at maintaining two |
| 17 |
>> > trees in paralell. Even if one is just "desktop cludge" to make the |
| 18 |
>> > DesktopDistribution work, it would require Time and Development. |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> Maybe I badly expressed myself, I meant that desktop won't build a |
| 21 |
>> special product for desktop, won't ask if we should have a modified |
| 22 |
>> install, or if we restrict some possibility to default... |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Let me say this about what I view as the responsibilities of -desktop. It has |
| 26 |
> two main responsibilities, the first one is to manage all current desktop |
| 27 |
> packages (delegated to the appropriate subprojects). |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> The second one is to research (yes research) how the gentoo desktop experience |
| 30 |
> can be improved. That includes things like the menusystem. Some sensible |
| 31 |
> session system (resp. for starting a windowmanager, which is currently quite |
| 32 |
> nonstandard and depending on the display manager (not windowmanager)) and I'm |
| 33 |
> sure there will be enough other things. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
The problem is that the conclusion will tend to tune/modify the DE, and it |
| 36 |
seems that people here don't want that, they want vanilla DE. For ex., menu |
| 37 |
system is the first improvment I think of, but it has a big impact on the |
| 38 |
look&feel of the DE. If we don't want DE tuned, then we cannot use debian like |
| 39 |
menu system. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> That research leads sometimes to proposed changes. Each of these changes will |
| 44 |
> be judged according to a.o. how easy it is to implement them, how standard |
| 45 |
> they are, whether they conform to the gentoo way, etc. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
This can be done if we have decided before if we want or not have a gentoo |
| 48 |
desktop touch. I don't think it is now decided. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> The general idea being that if it is possible everything should just work |
| 52 |
> after the emerge command has been completed. This also might involve changing |
| 53 |
> default configuration files to work with the way things are installed in |
| 54 |
> gentoo (like specifying the correct location of programs). This does however |
| 55 |
> not mean that just anything can be changed in the default configurations. |
| 56 |
> Look and feel should be as standard as possible. (for example k3b should just |
| 57 |
> work out of the box and know allready where cdrecord is installed, etc.) |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
The last example is not a desktop issue for me. It's the maintainer to do this, |
| 60 |
and to ask the cdrecord maintainer informations, if he needs it. |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
-- |
| 64 |
dams |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
-- |
| 67 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives