Re: Release Team's Almost-Final Modules List

[Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>]

On 28 May 2003, Luis Villa wrote:

> On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 18:47, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > I fully support this.  Like I said, g-s-t looks cool, and I am willing
> > to do the work for FreeBSD.  I guess my point is about g-s-t's _current_
> > readiness for 2.4.
> 
> My[1] concern (and this is probably something that needs to go into GEP
> 10) is not so much for 'does it run on FreeBSD' as ''can it run on
> FreeBSD.' Joe, if it's your opinion that porting the current g-s-t
> infrastructure will be difficult/very hard (once you've been able to
> inspect it thoroughly), that's a huge strike against it. 
> 

well, presently its much more 'gnome-linux-system-tools' than
'gnome-system-tools' that could be expected to work and be useful on a
variety of (non-linux) systems. Its not just the matter of porting /
writing new backend pieces. ultimately its design is backwards - instead
of an GUI that adjust itself to what its present backend/system is capable
of, it is a gui into which you can plug a new backend that needs to
provide the gui with what it thingks will be there on the system.

a trivial example would be the existence of runlevels.

> OTOH, I don't think 'it's not yet ported to $FOO' should be a serious
> strike- we just want to make sure that when someone does want to port it
> somewhere it is reasonably possible to do so.
> 
> Luis
> 
> [1] I'm speaking only for myself, though I'd assume that most of release
> team would agree if polled.
> 

	Sander

OpenOffice.org - conquering the world 14000 PC-s at a time