Just wondering whether RedHat or somebody else is thinking about adding other lightweights window managers besides that BlueCurve like Xfce, Fluxbox, or Fvwm! BlueCurve is nice but I don't need all those bells and whistles. I want something (window manager) that is fast and doesn't take up a lot of system resources...
Lawrence
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:40:21AM -0700, Lawrence Mao wrote:
Just wondering whether RedHat or somebody else is thinking about adding other lightweights window managers besides that BlueCurve like Xfce, Fluxbox, or Fvwm! BlueCurve is nice but I don't need all those bells and whistles. I want something (window manager) that is fast and doesn't take up a lot of system resources...
We aren't thinking of doing this ourselves at Red Hat, but alternative WMs are a prime example of the kind of package we'd like to see added to Red Hat Linux by others.
Havoc
How do you propose a package for inclusion under the new regime? I have an auditing package called sudoscript that's been in contrib since 1.0.something. It's now at version 2.2.1 with 3.0 in testing. I'd like to maintain in RHL. What's the process?
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 12:31, Havoc Pennington wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 10:40:21AM -0700, Lawrence Mao wrote:
Just wondering whether RedHat or somebody else is thinking about adding other lightweights window managers besides that BlueCurve like Xfce, Fluxbox, or Fvwm! BlueCurve is nice but I don't need all those bells and whistles. I want something (window manager) that is fast and doesn't take up a lot of system resources...
We aren't thinking of doing this ourselves at Red Hat, but alternative WMs are a prime example of the kind of package we'd like to see added to Red Hat Linux by others.
Havoc
-- Rhl-list mailing list Rhl-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-list
Howard Owen (hbo@egbok.com) said:
How do you propose a package for inclusion under the new regime? I have an auditing package called sudoscript that's been in contrib since 1.0.something. It's now at version 2.2.1 with 3.0 in testing. I'd like to maintain in RHL. What's the process?
bugzilla, against distribution.
Note that until we get more infrastructure for external contribution up and going (which we're working on), there probably won't be much movement on this front right away.
Bill
Hello,
Tuesday, July 22, 2003, 11:55:35 PM, you wrote:
How do you propose a package for inclusion under the new regime?
BN> bugzilla, against distribution.
BN> Note that until we get more infrastructure for external contribution BN> up and going (which we're working on), there probably won't be much BN> movement on this front right away.
I think it would be nice for everybody to discuss this future infrastructure in this list. If you have some vision or just the particular ideas about that, please, publish them. For example, what you think about staging - testing/unstable/stable etc. branches, some kind of the scheme currently used by fedora and debian? I think this will help a lot having some part (or maybe even main part) of packages maintained by "external" people.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 12:16:01AM +0400, Dmitry Tweritin wrote:
I think it would be nice for everybody to discuss this future infrastructure in this list. If you have some vision or just the particular ideas about that, please, publish them. For example, what you think about staging - testing/unstable/stable etc. branches, some kind of the scheme currently used by fedora and debian? I think this will help a lot having some part (or maybe even main part) of packages maintained by "external" people.
Agree we should discuss, I would say rhl-devel-list is more appropriate though. This is more of the user questions list and I'm expecting it to be higher traffic.
Havoc
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Dmitry Tweritin wrote:
I think it would be nice for everybody to discuss this future infrastructure in this list.
That's one of the reasons the infrastructure isn't in place yet. It'd have been bad if we came up with something the external contributors didn't like ;)
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:47:47PM -0700, Howard Owen wrote:
How do you propose a package for inclusion under the new regime? I have an auditing package called sudoscript that's been in contrib since 1.0.something. It's now at version 2.2.1 with 3.0 in testing. I'd like to maintain in RHL. What's the process?
Well, that's the catch. We don't have the infrastructure in place yet.
We've started by putting up a lot of our internal devel docs on rhl.redhat.com, and moving our devel discussion from internal forums to rhl-devel-list and #rhl-devel. So joining those is probably a good step.
The problem is that our infrastructure for all the aspects of maintaining a package is still partially internal. So over the next months, we will be trying to break down the barriers to external contribution.
Right now, to accept an external package we'd basically need someone internal to act as a proxy for you to build your SRPMs, we may do this for two or three packages, but it isn't going to scale at all.
Havoc
Thanks. I thought it might be a little early to ask. But it's good to know what you guys are thinking. I agree a manual approach won't scale.
I'll take the advice to join rhl-devel-list. Thanks.
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 12:58, Havoc Pennington wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:47:47PM -0700, Howard Owen wrote:
How do you propose a package for inclusion under the new regime? I have an auditing package called sudoscript that's been in contrib since 1.0.something. It's now at version 2.2.1 with 3.0 in testing. I'd like to maintain in RHL. What's the process?
Well, that's the catch. We don't have the infrastructure in place yet.
We've started by putting up a lot of our internal devel docs on rhl.redhat.com, and moving our devel discussion from internal forums to rhl-devel-list and #rhl-devel. So joining those is probably a good step.
The problem is that our infrastructure for all the aspects of maintaining a package is still partially internal. So over the next months, we will be trying to break down the barriers to external contribution.
Right now, to accept an external package we'd basically need someone internal to act as a proxy for you to build your SRPMs, we may do this for two or three packages, but it isn't going to scale at all.
Havoc
-- Rhl-list mailing list Rhl-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-list
Well, Xfce did have the latest package in RPM for both RedHat Linux 8.0 and 9.0 which is nice. I just hope that other groups (like Fluxbox or Fvwm) would do the same to make it easy to install it on RedHat. Somehow, I just can't get Fluxbox to work with RedHat Linux 9.0 even setting up .xsession or .xinitrc. Windows-Maker would be nice too since I used it a little before.
Thanks.
Lawrence
--- Havoc Pennington hp@redhat.com wrote:
We aren't thinking of doing this ourselves at Red Hat, but alternative WMs are a prime example of the kind of package we'd like to see added to Red Hat Linux by others.
Havoc
-- Rhl-list mailing list Rhl-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhl-list
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 10:40:21 -0700 (PDT), Lawrence Mao wrote:
Just wondering whether RedHat or somebody else is thinking about adding other lightweights window managers besides that BlueCurve like Xfce, Fluxbox, or Fvwm! BlueCurve is nice but I don't need all those bells and whistles. I want something (window manager) that is fast and doesn't take up a lot of system resources...
Fluxbox and Openbox src.rpms are waiting in the Fedora package queue to be reviewed:
fluxbox - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=487 openbox - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=422
- --