Re: Modulesets Reorganization


I really like your ideas:

On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 20:55 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
> Hi!
> OK, as the discussion calmed down a bit I wanted to make some more
> constructive comment to the new module organization. I feel that there
> are a couple of (utility) applications that should be part of GNOME
> (e.g. the Desktop module set). This is a subset of the current
> application in the Desktop module even if they are not necessary for
> getting the session up. I left out the things that are necessary to
> start the session and I also left out accessibility but simply because I
> have nearly no idea about those modules. Someone should add those
> please.
> * bug-buddy (the point is that most distros don't use it so maybe we
> should remove it)
> * evince
> * eog
> * file-roller
> * gcalctool
> * gedit
> * gnome-terminal
> * nautilus
> * seahorse
> * totem
> * yelp
> These are the minimal requirements I see for a desktop computer to have,
> whatever the purpose of this computer is. These should probably also
> integrated tightly into the desktop so that the user doesn't even see
> them as real applications.

Agreed - I think this is a really good list.

> In addition I would propose to have an "Applications" module where
> modules are included that are
> * Hosted on (git, translations, etc.)
> * Follow the rules here
> * Have an UI, documentation and accessibility  review if possible

I also agree - I think being hosted on GNOME infrastructure is a key
requirement (and I'm confused whether this is a requirement in the new
module proposal from the release team).  I think being hosted on GNOME
infrastructure will help with documentation, translations and

> It might be a good idea to create some subcategories here like Online
> (evo, empathy, epiphany), Multimedia (rhythmbox, etc.), DevTools,
> Photos, Utilities (hamster, etc.). This list should be reviewed before
> every release and old and unmaintained stuff should drop out while new
> stuff can go it. It would be OK to have more than one application for
> the same purpose.

I really like this idea.  I think it addresses some of the other
concerns that have been brought up.

> The "Applications" set should be rather strict in the requirements.
> Better keep it small and good, but it would be a great place to promote
> high-quality applications and not as abstract as "some promotion on the
> web site".
> Just my 2 cents,
> Johannes
> P.S: Background of my proposal for specific things that may look strage
> at first sight (some examples):
> * evolution: Many people just use webmail
> * epiphany: unsure. Most distros ship firefox. A webbrowser is definitly
> a requirement so.
> * sound-juicer/brasero: I had them on the list and realized then that
> there are many devices without an optical drive.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]