On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 00:32 +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
On 2007-10-31, 18:49 GMT, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I have suggested at least 2 technical solutions, none of which needs any changes to Anaconda:
May add one more possible solution: what about dropping Base X group from anaconda altogether and why not to treat it as a library, which is required by another components (do we have a group for glibc)?
The major problem with this is there's almost nothing in the distro that requires the X server itself at the rpm level. The various X drivers do, but nothing requires them besides the xorg-x11-drivers metapackage. rhpxl and compiz require Xorg, but it's quite possible to want a system without them, so you don't want to have just those two be responsible for pulling in the X server.
The base-x group in comps is actually pretty minimal on its own. I'd be happy with trimming it down to the bare minimum, marking it non-visible, and having the various desktop groups depend on it (in comps, not in their packaging).
Of course this is predicated on comps having a groupreq mechanism, which it doesn't.
The other group is much more interesting. I really don't like a tendency of Fedora moving with its system requirements somewhere close to the one of Windows Vista (yes, we would have to fix anaconda first, but that's another issue, let's keep this X specific). It would be nice if people who are interested in this created some group of packages (with their own desktop manager? -- is there anything else than [gkx]dm?) so that we could fourth environment (even though this would be probably very virtual not consisting from packages originally intended to be part of one environment) besides Gnome, KDE, and XFCE. Are there any friends of WindowMaker around here (that would be nice for higher degree of compatibility with Mac OS X)? Or IceWM?
I would say something here about senseless duplication of effort, but it's not likely to convince anybody.
That said, if someone wanted to have a WindowMaker Desktop group in comps, that'd be fine; it should depend on base-x though.
On xdm theme -- if anybody is interested in this; well, xorg-x11-xdm src.rpm is 400k -- it shouldn't be unfathomable for interested geek to fix it and maintain it (and I would be glad to meet you, because xdm bugs in bugzilla are always for me, desktop team bugmaster, kind of nightmare).
Please, just pretend xdm doesn't exist.
I wish we had a way to mark packages as actively deprecated. I don't want to orphan xdm, I want that no one work on it ever again.
- ajax