Settings downstream would reasonably want to add [was: long thread with no resolution]

[Dave Neary <dneary gnome org>]

Hi Martin,

Martin Pitt wrote:
> Aside from that the technical issue remains that this does make it
> harder to customize c-c to a downstream's needs, of course. It's
> really good that the individual changes are being discussed here
> (deja-dup, etc.), and perhaps for the case of Ubuntu One we can even
> find some better solution than "totally Ubuntu specific", but I'm
> afraid it is a fact that we will always have a need to do some
> customization (like adding our "Additional Drivers", or at least brand
> Ubuntu One as such, etc.).  We'll get along either way, I just think
> it is important for GNOME to understand that closing APIs like that
> won't really stop Ubuntu (or Meego, etc.) from changing it anyway.

Can we talk specifics?

What preferences do you think you'll want to add to GNOME CC which
aren't currently planned, and how would you like to add them?

Beyond Ubuntu One (which conceptually would match with the "Sharing"
settings, and which Allan has already said should be dynamically
addable), I'm struggling to figure out what you might need to add.

It feels like there must be a better way to handle enabling additional
hardware drivers than an "Additional drivers" preferences panel. Is
there a need for a "Hardware" panel? A "Software updates" panel which
delegates preferences to downstream depending on whether it's apt-get,
yum or zypper based? Is this something we could think about at the GNOME
level, rather than having it implemented a number of different ways
downstream?

Cheers,
Dave.

-- 
Dave Neary
GNOME Foundation member
dneary gnome org