[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New Tasks (was: Re: Where are tasks now and how are they handled?)

Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include <hallo.h>
> IMO, the current combination of task packages is not very good. We have
> too few tasks in the End-User section.  "desktop environment" is
> unprecise and bloated, OTOH other interessting programs are not
> represented by any task. We need following new tasks:
>  - Desktop environment (Gnome)
>  - Desktop environment (KDE)
>  ## I am still not sure about splitting "desktop" to GNOME and KDE

It doubt it will happen. It contradicts one of the fundamental tenets of
tasks. OTOH aptitude lets one select the curent desktop task and then go
in and remove the kde or most of the gnome stuff.

>  - K.I.S.S. X environment

This is probably best served by the existing X Window System task +
letting people choose their window manager, either as they could in
potato, or more likely via aptitude, since aptitude will be the main way
the tasks are presented to the user in woody, and you can easily go up
and find a window manager etc at the same time.

It could alternativly be used to replace the existing X Window System
task with one that includes a number of common window managers and their
associated packages, as aptitude also lets you select a task and then
drill into it and unselect components.

>  - Multimedia system

Isn't multimedia a standard part of a desktop environment these days?

>  - Base Internet client (Console)
>  - Base Internet Client (X11)

> Base Internet client (Console) [task-netclient-console]:
>   w3m-ssl, telnet, ssh, lftp, yafc, wget, mutt, slrn, irsii, leafnode
> Base Internet Client (X11) [task-netclient-x]:
>   Mozilla (and Galeon), xchat-gnome, ksirc, gftp-gtk, pavuk, prozgui

These might just make sense as a combined task.

Note that I recently added an office environment task (mostly the
gnome-office metapackage, at least until/if openoffice gets into the

see shy jo

Attachment: pgpCQpXouR5VT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: