Am Montag, dem 05.02.2024 um 16:08 +0000 schrieb Dariqq:
>
> On 04.02.24 20:26, Liliana Marie Prikler wrote:
>
> > Yes, it seems Maxim and I have conflicting goals. Maxim wants to
> > avoid "abusing" gnome-shell-assets whereas I want to avoid
> > propagation, as it pollutes profiles. Perhaps Maxim and I can
> > agree on how to interpret gnome-shell-assets, as IIUC even with
> > packages that aren't "pure data" only the data portion of it ought
> > to be relevant, no?
> >
> > We should do so especially because the newly propagated variables
> > are anyhow propagated by gnome-desktop-service, which could
> > constitute weird behaviour all around.
> >
> > Cheers
>
> What would you think of the wrap-program solution which would avoid
> propagating pacakges?
>
> I currently have something like
>
> #+BEGIN_SRC scheme
> (add-after 'install 'wrap-gdm
> (lambda* (#:key inputs outputs #:allow-other-keys)
> (wrap-program (string-append #$output "/bin/gdm")
> `("XDG_DATA_DIRS" ":" prefix
> #$(map (lambda (input)
> (file-append (this-package-input input)
> "/share"))
> '("at-spi2-core"
> "dconf"
> "gnome-control-center"))))))
> #+END_SRC
>
> Also this way the assets (adwaita and cantarell) should be kept in
> the gdm-configuration as when I tested this I had a white box as a
> cursor.
That SGTM, but we do need a more descriptive phase name. The question
is whether we should inline the gnome-shell assets this way as well or
not.
Maxim, WDYT?
