On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 00:32 +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
On 2007-10-31, 18:49 GMT, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I have suggested at least 2 technical solutions, none of which
> needs any changes to Anaconda:
May add one more possible solution: what about dropping Base
X group from anaconda altogether and why not to treat it as
a library, which is required by another components (do we have
a group for glibc)?
The major problem with this is there's almost nothing in the distro that
requires the X server itself at the rpm level. The various X drivers
do, but nothing requires them besides the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage.
rhpxl and compiz require Xorg, but it's quite possible to want a system
without them, so you don't want to have just those two be responsible
for pulling in the X server.
The base-x group in comps is actually pretty minimal on its own. I'd be
happy with trimming it down to the bare minimum, marking it non-visible,
and having the various desktop groups depend on it (in comps, not in
Of course this is predicated on comps having a groupreq mechanism, which
The other group is much more interesting. I really don't like
a tendency of Fedora moving with its system requirements
somewhere close to the one of Windows Vista (yes, we would have
to fix anaconda first, but that's another issue, let's keep this
X specific). It would be nice if people who are interested in
this created some group of packages (with their own desktop
manager? -- is there anything else than [gkx]dm?) so that we
could fourth environment (even though this would be probably very
virtual not consisting from packages originally intended to be
part of one environment) besides Gnome, KDE, and XFCE. Are there
any friends of WindowMaker around here (that would be nice for
higher degree of compatibility with Mac OS X)? Or IceWM?
I would say something here about senseless duplication of effort, but
it's not likely to convince anybody.
That said, if someone wanted to have a WindowMaker Desktop group in
comps, that'd be fine; it should depend on base-x though.
On xdm theme -- if anybody is interested in this; well,
xorg-x11-xdm src.rpm is 400k -- it shouldn't be unfathomable for
interested geek to fix it and maintain it (and I would be glad to
meet you, because xdm bugs in bugzilla are always for me, desktop
team bugmaster, kind of nightmare).
Please, just pretend xdm doesn't exist.
I wish we had a way to mark packages as actively deprecated. I don't
want to orphan xdm, I want that no one work on it ever again.