Re: no external panels for gnome-control-center [was Re: GNOME Feature Proposal: Backup]

Il giorno mar, 10/05/2011 alle 21.51 -0500, Jason D. Clinton ha
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 19:15, Luca Ferretti <lferrett gnome org> wrote:
> > #3 -- I feel this "no-API for gnome-cc" approach crashes with planned
> > and upcoming changes in GNOME Desktop modules definition
> There is no GNOME Desktop module; we now have only core, platform and
> bindings. What are you speaking of?

In fact I wrote "GNOME Desktop modules", I suspect we still have a
"GNOME Desktop" project and two or more modules :P

However, as I said, I could missed something in latest weeks, but I'm
sure the transition from external/platform/desktop/admin/development to
core/other (where other mainly means applications) is still not

> >, as well as
> > with the idea of "GNOME as platform for everyone"
> What is this and where was it proposed?

If not, what is GNOME? A self-sustained, self-contained project? Of
course it's a great desktop for end users, but IMHO it's also -- or it
should be -- an opportunity for developers. External developers. I.e.
people that create software outside People that create
software for fun, for profit or for fun&profit.

So I suspect there is no need to propose now "GNOME as platform for
everyone", it should be for everyone from its own creation.

> >. This proposal from
> > Deja-Dup is a neat example. IMHO deja-dup is not suitable to be a "core"
> > module (as per current definition of core: only stuff needed to start
> > user session), but it's perfect as "approved by GNOME" module.
> No, we do not have any such plans to approve or disapprove of modules.
> If they are outside of core, platform or bindings, the only official
> designation is that they might be featured in our marketing. That's
> it. We do not bless modules any more.

Oh, sorry, then I used the wrong word. Please consider approved==featured.

> > Also,
> > IMHO the UI proposed changes to Deja-dup preferences are well designed
> > for GNOME 3 experience (backup as a service, not as user launchable
> > app). So, this seems to be a contradiction: we can't place you in core,
> > but we don't want to provide the ability for a proper integration. Also,
> > what about third parts, vendors and distros?
> That's a technical problem, not political.

I don't understand. What do you mean with "technical" and "political"?

> > For instance, Ubuntu
> > provides a really useful Additional Drivers tool and I suppose the best
> > place for it is System Settings > Hardware; same for Prey
> > ( and it's configuration panel. Are we going to
> > make GNOME a closed desktop?
> Again, technical.

Again, I don't understand.

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