Re: [Setup-tool-hackers] System Tools (was RE: GNOME System Tools 0.29.0 "Where's my hack? ?" is out!)

[Carlos Garnacho <garnacho tuxerver net>]

Hi murray,

El jue, 20-11-2003 a las 17:33, Murray Cumming Comneon com escribió:
> garnacho tuxerver net wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 09:07:52PM -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > What about the earlier question about whether we can take the tools 
> > > separately? I'd be in favor of including the network and time tools 
> > > for
> > 
> > Independently of the tools that may be added to the desktop, 
> > I'd like to propose all of them. And even then, I won't stop 
> > working on the "refused" tools :-P
> 
> It's hard to guess the consensus, but it looks like people would like to
> include the time and network tools. 
> 
> In preparation for that, and to make that decision easier, I think it would
> be a good idea to either
> a) package those tools separately, and maybe move the rest into GNOME System
> Tools extra, or
> b) talk to the gnome-control-center maintainers about merging them into
> gnome-control-center.
> 
> Please don't wait for the new-modules decision before doing that.

the more sensible option for me is a), but as you said, it's hard to
guess the consensus, since the first time I proposed the tools, there
have been several opinions about including some tools and leaving
others, so I'd prefer to do such thing in a closer date to the feature
freeze than now :)

regarding to b), the GST have it's own "strange" structure :), I think
that we shouldn't mix packages

> 
> Personally, I would even like to include the extra tools in GNOME 2.6. If
> they were in a separate package then distros would find it easier not to
> ship the ones that didn't meet their needs yet.
> 
> > The main reason for packaging the tools altogether is because 
> > they have a strong common component (ie: network and time 
> > backends need the services backend for starting/stopping smbd 
> > and ntpd, or just src/commom, used in all the frontends)
> 
> Can we have the services backend without the services GUI? Maybe that would
> be a solution.

yes, of course, all I wanted to tell is that there isn't (and probably
won't be) a clear split in the code

maybe it could be worth of doing some kind of voting (at least, get more
opinions about the tools that should go) for getting a clearer
perspective about the next step that the tools should do?

	Regards