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

[Luca Ferretti <lferrett gnome org>]

Il giorno ven, 13/05/2011 alle 01.20 +0100, Bastien Nocera ha scritto:
> On Fri, 2011-05-13 at 02:00 +0200, Luca Ferretti wrote:

> > 
> > Then, as I said on another reply, why are gnome-shell extensions allowed
> > to change gnome-shell so deeply[1]? More, why is gnome-shell providing
> > support to extensions?
> 
> Because people don't ship those as default. 

Sorry, I fail understand how this statement could be an answer to my
questions... 

> In exactly the same way that
> you can build panels for the control-center very easily if you're a
> developer, even though the headers don't get installed.

Absolutely, not the same. You can write a gnome-shell extension and
distribute it without any esoteric development hell. By now there is no
graphical/simple installer for end users, but extensions developers
don't need to patch gnome-shell and distribute a custom release or wait
their extensions will be included in official gnome-shell module release

> So if you wanted to hack on a new panel, you'd probably fork
> gnome-control-center on github, and provide a mega patch for review in
> bugzilla. As long as the panel was designed, and the services integrate
> with the core of GNOME, and they serve a purpose for a large number of
> our users, it'll get in.

You are assuming system settings panels as universal panels.

So, let's assume I'm a vendor. I'm not Fedora or Ubuntu or Suse or
another distro. I'm a privately run firm. And I deploy linux/gnome based
PCs using $DISTRO.

My customer needs to provide a specific feature on deployed PCs, for
instance a tool to configure a specific hardware connected to PCs
(remember, just an example). Now the best place for this tool in order
to respect the whole GNOME Desktop experience is System Settings >
Hardware.

The only options you are providing to me are:
     1. place my customization in the wrong place, as a simple
        application
     2. include my customization as gnome-control-center patch (i.e.
        grab g-c-c source package from my base, patch it, rebuild it,
        distribute it to my customer and restart again when a
        gnome-control-center update will be made available by my base
        distro)

And note, while this is just an example, similar customizations are not
rare in the real world. Preventing people "a priori" (professionals, not
"kids in the basement") to use GNOME as a base to build something
different IMHO means to fail as open source project.

Well, of course I've another option. Switch to KDE as base system :)

> 
> > BTW "pet project"... IMHO "pet" is something that plays down the merits,
> > isn't it?
> 
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pet_project

As I said, plays down... the degeneration of sane competition: "$MINE is
kool, $YOUR sukks" :P