Am Donnerstag, den 25.02.2010, 18:00 -0500 schrieb Bill Nottingham:
Christoph Wickert (christoph.wickert@googlemail.com) said:
The first is a policy issue that could be redressed. The second is unlikely to change (and would imply you'd be signing up to write your own if you didn't want to use anaconda/firstboot, which I can't imagine is what you want), and the third probably requires patch submissions.
(Note: due to the requirements for a window manager at installation time, anaconda may very well require metacity in the near future.)
Why not a virtual provide and let the spin maintainers and users decide? In F12 we changed anaconda to use any display manager that has a virtual provides for "service(graphical-login)" instead of hardcoding a list of display managers. We should do the same for window manager.
anaconda, firstboot, and whatever would need a mechanism to start random-window-manager of the day and adjust the configuration as needed. If that's important to people, they should submit patches.
It is not random but defined by the user or maintainer. All the spins except the Desktop Spin already (have to) configure /etc/sysconfig/desktop.
There's also have the requirement that the window manager used support certain EWMH properties, although I suppose if you try and compose with twm you get all the pieces.
I guess all WMs in Fedora should support these properties.
What prevents you doing in in Fedora? Have you submitted a package review, or an example spec?
I cannot submit a package review because the files included in the package conflict with the current packages.
How so? Just package up some settings in the /etc/gconf.xml.system directory.
First of all I'm not interested in GNOME any longer, so there is no reason for me to submit such a package. I just named it as an example for smarter packaging.
Second: If the files do not confligt, how to prevent gnome-panel from reading other /etc/gconf/schemas/panel-* files? How to resolve conflicting settings?
Bill
Regards, Christoph