| 1 |
begin quote |
| 2 |
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:22:51 +0200 |
| 3 |
dams@×××.fr wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> * What is desktop : |
| 7 |
> desktop would be the project responsible of the desktop part of gentoo |
| 8 |
> Linux, without making global decision, like : should we build a |
| 9 |
> special product for desktop, should we have a modified install, should |
| 10 |
> we restrict some possibility to default... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I'm quite against this turn of development as it will split our meager |
| 13 |
develpomentteam even further and direct resources at maintaining two |
| 14 |
trees in paralell. Even if one is just "desktop cludge" to make the |
| 15 |
DesktopDistribution work, it would require Time and Development. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
As a general thread, we could well develop a meta system to create one |
| 18 |
(or more) generic desktop setup's (I guess we'd at least need two, one |
| 19 |
for KDE and one for Gnome, or people would never shut up. ) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Preparing a desktop distribution would require a lot of planning though, |
| 23 |
and is something that should be -VERY- carefully planned and documented |
| 24 |
before proceeding. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> * The tasks : |
| 28 |
This is where it becomes interesting. Who will do such discussion? |
| 29 |
The management team? The users? The Developers? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> That's why we might begin with a representation of what would the |
| 36 |
>perfect desktop product be, and see if we have everything we need in |
| 37 |
>gentoo. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Thats a slippery slope to follow since it very much depends on the |
| 41 |
purpouse of the desktop (corporate desktops may well -not- include a |
| 42 |
webbrowser) |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
//Spider |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
begin .signature |
| 49 |
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! |
| 50 |
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. |
| 51 |
end |
Archives