| 1 |
On Thursday 28 August 2003 22:21, foser wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2003-08-28 at 14:52, dams@×××.fr wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Maybe add a vanilla flags, that can be unset. When unset, the DE are |
| 4 |
> > preconfigured and gentoo touched. |
| 5 |
> > The pb is that you want vanilla, but you want also some core feature like |
| 6 |
> > centralized menu system, which is not compatible. So either we decide not |
| 7 |
> > to include such features, or to have a flag. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> The proposed implementation i have seen i dislike for several reasons, |
| 10 |
> but mostly because of the reasons i stated down here in my last mail |
| 11 |
> (compliance part). I think other possible solutions may be a lot more |
| 12 |
> workable and should be investigated first. But these are details, this |
| 13 |
> isn't the place to discuss this. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
There is currently work going on to create a unified desktop menu system with |
| 16 |
the hopes of integration with portage.Check out: |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=66754 |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
To sum up, it is an optional system that will create menu items for useful |
| 21 |
applications following guidelines on freedesktop.org for organisation. The |
| 22 |
issue of WM specific menus (such as KDE desktop settings) has been touched on |
| 23 |
but I don't believe has been resolved yet. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I've posted to the forum to alert the head developer of the project of this |
| 26 |
discussion. Hopefully, he'll clarify the idea. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
Jason |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives