From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19075 invoked by uid 1002); 28 Aug 2003 11:26:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 8428 invoked from network); 28 Aug 2003 11:26:00 -0000 To: Paul de Vrieze Cc: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org References: <200308281225.54022.pauldv@gentoo.org> <200308281308.29912.pauldv@gentoo.org> From: dams@idm.fr Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:28:42 +0200 In-Reply-To: <200308281308.29912.pauldv@gentoo.org> (Paul de Vrieze's message of "Thu, 28 Aug 2003 13:08:29 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] desktop X-Archives-Salt: 35ea8cb9-9efd-4e2f-9d0c-b0dda3a8bc43 X-Archives-Hash: bda14132d2c14ddc9a4c4745061ce31d Paul de Vrieze said: > On Thursday 28 August 2003 12:51, dams@idm.fr wrote: >> >> The problem is that the conclusion will tend to tune/modify the DE, and it >> seems that people here don't want that, they want vanilla DE. For ex., menu >> system is the first improvment I think of, but it has a big impact on the >> look&feel of the DE. If we don't want DE tuned, then we cannot use debian >> like menu system. > > That is true, there might be some custom parts in the DE's. I those cases I > think we should have some "vanilla" useflag that turns of > customizations/hacks that are gentoo-specific and are safe to turn of That's feasable, but may add some maintainance overloading >> >> > That research leads sometimes to proposed changes. Each of these changes >> > will be judged according to a.o. how easy it is to implement them, how >> > standard they are, whether they conform to the gentoo way, etc. >> >> This can be done if we have decided before if we want or not have a gentoo >> desktop touch. I don't think it is now decided. >> > > I for one would like the possibility of automated menus. But I feel such a > system needs to be respectfull of what the wm developers use. This would mean > that some user visible changes (like different locations of files) need both > be made optional and need to be documented. I totally agree on that. We don't want to goo too deep in technical/feature description. We could say : if the vanilla flag is not set, then by default we have a centralized menu, respectfull of each DE. > > >> > The general idea being that if it is possible everything should just work >> > after the emerge command has been completed. This also might involve >> > changing default configuration files to work with the way things are >> > installed in gentoo (like specifying the correct location of programs). >> > This does however not mean that just anything can be changed in the >> > default configurations. Look and feel should be as standard as possible. >> > (for example k3b should just work out of the box and know allready where >> > cdrecord is installed, etc.) >> >> The last example is not a desktop issue for me. It's the maintainer to do >> this, and to ask the cdrecord maintainer informations, if he needs it. > > No, you're right (except that k3b falls under the resp. of -desktop), but the > general issue might be more prominent. yeah -- dams -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list