Re: Why gnome-system-tools aren't included yet [Was: Re: new modulesconsensus]

[Carlos Garnacho <carlosg gnome org>]

Hi Murray :),

On Mon, 2004-08-16 at 16:14 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Mark McLoughlin <markmc redhat com> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> There is talk about including the Time and Users in control-center, but
> >> I think its too late in this release cycle for those kind of changes.
> >
> > Why gnome-release team doesn't include gnome-system-tools, because it is
> > too
> > late? I've heard this opinion for 3 times - first, when gnome-system-tools
> > were
> > proposed to be included in gnome 2.4, second time for gnome 2.6 and now :(
> > (look at
> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-July/msg00016.html
> > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-February/msg00221.html
> > )
> 
> Well, the problem is that the g-s-t maintainer might not have time to
> split up his tarbll. Of course it's not his fault that it took this long
> for it to be clear that he needs to do that (assuming that's our
> consensus).

Right now you can choose at configure time which tools do you want to
compile:

  ...
  --enable-boot           Enable build boot module (default yes)
  --enable-network        Enable build network module (default yes)
  --enable-services       Enable build services module (default yes)
  --enable-time           Enable build time module (default yes)
  --enable-users          Enable build users module (default yes)
  --enable-disks          Enable build disks development module (default no)
  ...

so it could be a matter of changing some defaults here, and this could
still let package maintainers (i.e: The debian maintainer wants to 
keep all modules :) to enable them all.

> 
> But maybe (Mark?) the g-s-t maintainer (Carlos) should have the chance to
> split up his package quickly if he can. Maybe we should give him a week?
> 
> I did suggest during 2.3/2.4 that he should do this in advance, because
> this was likely to be necessary. But he chose to gamble that all of g-s-t
> would be accepted. So it's not _all_ our fault.

While I'd like to see all the tools in, I have already accepted [1][2]
several times to split the packages (or any equivalent), but I'm not
going to make random efforts following a still not clear consensus for
no gain at all (like in 2.4 and 2.6)

	Regards


[1] http://lists.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-November/msg00547.html
[2] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-January/msg00135.html

> 
> Murray Cumming
> murrayc murrayc com
> www.murrayc.com
> www.openismus.com
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list