On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 03:29:09PM +0100, Christian Marillat wrote: > Colin Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico- to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
