Les Mikesell wrote: > Bastien Nocera wrote: >> >>> Also if this isn't the way to get this in fedora then what is? this >>> change will affect everyone and should not rely on one person but >>> should have a solid base behind it. >> >> Get the defaults changed upstream. >> >>> In this thread there are just a few -1 posts and the rest seems to be >>> +1 so the solid base is building up here. >> >> That's called a vocal minority, and is the reason why we don't have >> votes on mailing-lists for this sort of thing. >> >> And if you think it's a matter of patching the package, note that for >> any GNOME packages you'll find in Fedora for which there are patches, >> you'll find those same patches/functionality being upstreamed. > > I think there is really a better approach to this, but it doesn't mesh > all that well with RPM capabilities. That is, for every package or > package group where there is more than one commonly desired > configuration, there should be multiple configuration packages where the > last one installed wins, conceptually similar to the way the > caching-nameserver package is just a different configuration for bind. > > Then you could have a gnome-cluttered package for people who like > leaving trails of open windows splattered all over the screen and > gnome-clean for people who don't. > I don't think rpm packages are the right way to do this. There might be some interesting way to extend sabayon to be a "configuration package tool", though. That would be highly experimental and is likely something that needs some thought and some work as a separate project for a while. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
