Re: Metapackage strategy for GNOME 3
Hi!
On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 02:40:25PM +0530, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I am proposing to keep the gnome-core metapackage and to use it for the
> core upstream packages. The condition for that is for these to stick on
> a single CD. This will probably have to be checked afterwards with the
> CD team.
Agreed, this can continue being the "minimal but reasonable default
desktop".
> As for the high-level metapackages, I can envision two strategies:
> * Drop gnome-desktop-environment entirely, only keeping gnome that
> would include upstream featured apps in addition to the ones we
> select.
> * Replace it by gnome-apps that would contain upstream blessed
> applications, and make gnome depend on gnome-apps.
> Given the lack of clear upstream rules for featured applications, I’m
> seeing the first approach work better for the long term.
*nod*. The name sucked anyway. :P
> We should probably keep gnome-devel as is. I’d like to use the
> opportunity to rename gnome-core-devel to gnome-platform-devel, but you
> can also keep the name.
It's a good time for package renames, and what you propose matches the
upstream name for the concept, so I'd vote for a rename.
> I’m wondering whether gnome-accessibility still makes sense. It probably
> does no harm keeping it and making gnome-core recommend it, but pushing
> all of its contents to gnome-core and making accessibility a first-class
> citizen like upstream does would be nice.
In G3, integration of the accessibility stuff is very clean and
unintrusive: it just adds an icon to the Shell bar, which for now is
mostly infrautilised.
Besides, I think it's best to make this stuff easy to use (ie by
default, not needing to install extra packages), so a big +1 from me.
> I don’t know what to do with gnome-office. We could probably merge its
> contents directly into gnome, I don’t see the point of a specific
> package.
I'm not sure. What's clear is absolutely everyone is using OOo/LO, even if
Gnumeric is better than Calc, and Abi is just no match to Writer in many
areas.
I think adding it to gnome would make sense: one less package and people
will get The GIMP easily (if gimp isn't a "featured app", I don't know
what else could be :)
> As for the “mini”-metapackage that is gnome-session, I’m not entirely
> sure. Given the number of interested people and the number of desktop
> environments Debian is shipping, I think it makes more sense to propose
> both GNOME and GNOME fallback as available sessions directly into GDM.
>
> This would imply:
> * gnome-session depending on gnome-shell, mutter, g-s-d, and a few
> others;
> * gnome-session-fallback (or -classic, or gnome2-session, or
> whatever cool name you come up with) depending on gnome-panel,
> metacity, g-s-d and the same others;
> * gnome-session recommending gnome-session-fallback;
> * gnome-core depending on both.
Sounds ok, even your cool name. :)
> The alternative is a single gnome-session depending on both gnome-shell
> and gnome-panel, and leaving only one way to switch to the fallback
> mode, in the control center. I think it might be feasible in the future,
> but I’m expecting too much backlash if we follow upstream on this right
> now.
There will be some people who will just want to use fallback as default.
Making it installable separately from the new stuff might make sense in
the long run too.
Jordi
--
Jordi Mallach Pérez -- Debian developer http://www.debian.org/
jordi@sindominio.net jordi@debian.org http://www.sindominio.net/
GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/
Reply to: