On Friday 31 December 2010 11:33:08 Jeffery MacEachern wrote: > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 02:09, Cornelius Schumacher <schumac...@kde.org> wrote: > > On Friday 31 December 2010 Trever Fischer wrote: > >> We do not want to downplay the fact that some developer didn't put their > >> .desktop file into the right category. The whole reason we switched from > >> the previous structure was because people would just use the 'advanced' > >> or 'misc' sections as a dumping ground and eventually *everything* > >> started looking like an 'advanced' feature. > > > > What about not showing modules at all, which don't have the correct meta > > data? If modules don't correctly identify themselves their quality might > > just not be up to the level desirable for inclusion in system settings. > > I have to disagree with that. I have come across some third-party KCMs > in the Arch Linux AUR which, while maybe not well maintained, are > still of good use, and may not have a better alternative. In that case it would be the task of the package maintainer of the distro to ensure that the correct metadata is set. It's a task of probably less than five minutes.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
