Re: Window managers

[James Henstridge <james daa com au>]

I think the idea was that gnome-core would have a line in its spec file
like:
  Requires: gnome-compliant-wm

And all GNOME compliant window managers would have the following in their
spec file:
  Provides: gnome-compliant-wm

There would not be an actual package called gnome-compliant-wm.  This way
gnome-core would not explicitely depend on enlightenment (so if someone
packaged up Jay's fvwm-gnome package, and made it install a fvwm.desktop
in $(datadir)/gnome/wm-properties, it could be a viable substitute for E).

It is Red Hat's decision of what goes on their CDs, and at the time of
pressing, the way things currently are was probably the most sensible.  In
the future, when we have more gnome compliant window managers, it would be
a good idea to look at this again.

As always, if you don't like the way gnome-core is packaged, you are free
to recompile and install it yourself.

James Henstridge.

--
Email: james@daa.com.au
WWW:   http://www.daa.com.au/~james/


On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Jesse D . Sightler wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 18:23:38 Sam Steingold wrote:
> 
[snip]
> > I really don't understand why you cannot just introduce
> > `gnome-compliant-window-manager' and be done with it.
> 
> Because it is a messy solution.  What if the user just installs "gnome-compliant-window-manager"
> without actually installing a gnome compliant window manager?  What package(s) should
> gnome-compliant-window-manager depend on?  Shouldn't a newbie reasonably expect that if he
> installs gnome-compliant-window-manager then he shouldn't have to install other window
> managers?
> 
> This solution is just plain nutso.
> 
[snip]