Re: Proposed: gnome-system-tools

[Carlos Garnacho <garnacho tuxerver net>]

El dom, 04-01-2004 a las 17:14, Havoc Pennington escribió:
> On Sun, 2004-01-04 at 01:52, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > Hrm, I don't know what to say about these, apart from the fact that they're
> > really sweet these days. Clearly people want them, but there hasn't been
> > much distributor buy-in or commentary at all, really.
> 
> I had a few comments last time we discussed it - 
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-October/msg00243.html
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2003-October/msg00255.html
> 
> Re-reading these, my main concern continues to be that nobody is sitting
> down and holistically thinking through the control panels as a whole,
> how they appear in the menus, where each setting lives and how the user
> finds it.
> 
> Not a problem introduced by the system tools, but here is the thing:
> it's the main problem including system tools in GNOME could _solve_,
> that we can't solve easily in distribution-specific tools.

You're right, IMHO this problem has been there for too long, about a
year ago I faced the decision of moving the g-s-t menu items from
"desktop preferences" to "system settings", it wasn't the correct
decision, but neither was keeping it in "desktop preferences" because:

 - the g-s-t aren't for desktop preferences
 - mixing in the same menu elements that require root password and
elements that doesn't isn't a good idea

To avoid problems like these, I think that the control center should be
sorted and categorized in some way, of course with the g-s-t in mind to
make it feel like a whole. Anyways, I consider that merging g-s-t and
g-c-c is a bad idea

> 
> My secondary concern was that some of the system tools didn't make sense
> to me, though I haven't checked whether they are all still included. So
> I do think we should consider them one at a time, not as a bundle.

Even when I'd want all the tools to become part of gnome 2.6, I think I
already agreed to split the toolset if it's necessary, so the correct
consensus should be on which tools to accept. Of course the development
on the "rejected" tools won't stop

In one of these messages you also raise the issue of accessing HAL
through the backends, all I can say is that in the short term this will
be hard to happen, as the backends are perl scripts, but in a longer
term it will be more feasible

Sorry for not having answered these questions before :)

	regards

> 
> Havoc
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
>