Excerpts from Ng Oon-Ee's message of 2010-04-22 00:22:24 +0200: > On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 22:04 +0200, fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:59:17PM +0800, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: > > > > > I appreciate the desire for a minimal system. What I don't understand is > > > the vilifying of packages just because they're part of a standard Gnome > > > install. > > > > That's not the point. According to the definition on > > the gstreamer website > > > > "GStreamer is a library for constructing graphs of media-handling > > components. The applications it supports range from simple Ogg/Vorbis > > playback, audio/video streaming to complex audio (mixing) and video > > (non-linear editing) processing." > > > > Fine. Potentially very interesting and useful. > > > > But if it depends on things that have *nothing at all* > > to do with the claimed application domain - security > > subsystems (keyrings) and configuration programs for > > a specific desktop (gconf) that, at least in my world, > > is a sign of *crappy design*. Which seems to invade > > almost everything Gnome. One is almost tempted to believe > > that introducing irrelevant dependencies is the essence > > of the game. > > > > Ciao, > > > Would you prefer the developer reimplement security-authorization and a > configuration parser, then? Its not even as if gconf and its editor > aren't separated into different packages. I don't know what I need security authorization ind a multimedia backend for. I don't know whether gconf is usable without its editor and it doesn't matter really since it stays a gnome thing. Yes, I rather have an application specific config than a DE specific config system.
