Re: Proposal for LAT inclusion in GNOME 2.18

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On Thu, 2006-09-14 at 09:06 +0200, Baptiste Mille-Mathias wrote:
> > > Ter, 2006-09-12 às 14:26 -0400, Hubert Figuiere escreveu:
> >
> > Why not? The language and needed dependencies, including runtime, is just an other
> > parameter of teh software. What'sw wrong with disliking Mono or Python or C++?
> >
> >
> > Sander
> >
> > .sigless
> >
> >
> 
> Hello
> 
> I think some people forget the main goal of this thread: "should we
> include LAT in GNOME for release 2.18 ?"
> Before any language debate, we should focus on why LAT should or
> shouldn't be included in GNOME. (specially because the language debate
> for Mono is over, and I'm not a pro mono guy).
> 
> For me, I would say No, as don't see really a reason to include LAT in
> GNOME, because administrating LDAP is not a common task. Even if we
> consider the Administrator platform (pessulus, sabayon), these tools
> are for administrating GNOME desktop, and not for general
> administration.
> 
but a LDAP admin tool serves the purpose of managing users that run the
GNOME desktop :-) That is, it will consolidate the admin suite into
something that system admins would base their decision on to install
GNOME instead of another desktop.
-- 
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>