On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 00:32 +0100, Matej Cepl wrote: > On 2007-10-31, 18:49 GMT, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > I have suggested at least 2 technical solutions, none of which > > needs any changes to Anaconda: > > May add one more possible solution: what about dropping Base > X group from anaconda altogether and why not to treat it as > a library, which is required by another components (do we have > a group for glibc)? The major problem with this is there's almost nothing in the distro that requires the X server itself at the rpm level. The various X drivers do, but nothing requires them besides the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage. rhpxl and compiz require Xorg, but it's quite possible to want a system without them, so you don't want to have just those two be responsible for pulling in the X server. The base-x group in comps is actually pretty minimal on its own. I'd be happy with trimming it down to the bare minimum, marking it non-visible, and having the various desktop groups depend on it (in comps, not in their packaging). Of course this is predicated on comps having a groupreq mechanism, which it doesn't. > The other group is much more interesting. I really don't like > a tendency of Fedora moving with its system requirements > somewhere close to the one of Windows Vista (yes, we would have > to fix anaconda first, but that's another issue, let's keep this > X specific). It would be nice if people who are interested in > this created some group of packages (with their own desktop > manager? -- is there anything else than [gkx]dm?) so that we > could fourth environment (even though this would be probably very > virtual not consisting from packages originally intended to be > part of one environment) besides Gnome, KDE, and XFCE. Are there > any friends of WindowMaker around here (that would be nice for > higher degree of compatibility with Mac OS X)? Or IceWM? I would say something here about senseless duplication of effort, but it's not likely to convince anybody. That said, if someone wanted to have a WindowMaker Desktop group in comps, that'd be fine; it should depend on base-x though. > On xdm theme -- if anybody is interested in this; well, > xorg-x11-xdm src.rpm is 400k -- it shouldn't be unfathomable for > interested geek to fix it and maintain it (and I would be glad to > meet you, because xdm bugs in bugzilla are always for me, desktop > team bugmaster, kind of nightmare). Please, just pretend xdm doesn't exist. I wish we had a way to mark packages as actively deprecated. I don't want to orphan xdm, I want that no one work on it ever again. - ajax -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
