On Thu, 2014-01-30 at 12:55 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > Given the tension between the definition of a "Workstation Product" and > the multiple desktop spins that I've identified on devel@ - i.e. that a > "Workstation product" built around a single desktop occupies the > 'desktop space', without accounting for alternative desktops - do you > definitely want to go ahead with the model where the WS product is > specifically associated with a single desktop and makes no attempt to > somehow 'include' alternative desktops, or is it worth considering > possible approaches that somehow account for alternatives? I realize it > might be quite late to do that, but it seemed worth asking the question. I don't think it makes any sense to build a product if you don't specify what it consists of. So yes, we need decide on a single set of packages that make up the Workstation. That is what you get if you install it. That is what the QA team will test to make sure it works. Etc. That does not mean that there will be no 'accounting' for alternative desktops. I think Christian has maybe outlined before that there can be room for an option to install a different DE in addition, if it 'plays by the rules', which still have to be determined, but I would expect the minimum would be: - appears as a session type on the login screen - uses common infrastructure where possible (things like localed, logind, etc) - does not interfere with the function of the core Workstation package set (ie the main DE) -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
