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

Re: Bug#167004: gnome-wm

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 03:29:09PM +0100, Christian Marillat wrote:
> Colin Walters <walters@debian.org> writes:

> > Christian, could you look over it?  The policy maintainers indicated to
> > me on IRC that they would only add it to policy after it had been
> > integrated, so if you are in agreement, I will commit support to our
> > gnome-session CVS for it, and supply patches to the metacity and sawfish
> > packages.

> I disagree with that. Users already don't know how to setup the default
> x-window manager, and now you want to introduce an new
> update-alternative...

I think you're missing the point.  If eczema-window-manager (or
whatever this is called is introduced, and gnome depends on and uses
this instead of x-window-manager, then users won't have to know
anything!  It'll Just Work(tm).

Here's the scenario: twm and metacity are both installed.  Now, twm
wins the race for x-window-manager, because it's a better qualified
standalone window manager than metacity.  However metacity wins the
race for eczema-window-manager, because twm isn't in that race, so
when gnome starts, and runs eczema-window-manager, the user gets
metacity.  No knowledge by the user is required, and everyone's happy.

(And BTW, I think "desktop-window-manager" might be a better name.)

> I think the best choice is to increase the value to 30 or 40 if a
> window manager complies with the Window Manager Specification Project
> and keep only one alternative for window manager.

No.  Such compliance only helps if you're using a window manager with
one of these desktop environments.  You're going to face fierce (and
well-deserved) opposition to any such proposal.

Chris Waters           |  Pneumonoultra-        osis is too long
xtifr@debian.org       |  microscopicsilico-    to fit into a single
or xtifr@speakeasy.net |  volcaniconi-          standalone haiku

Reply to: