On Sat, 2006-04-22 at 10:01 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote: > I didn't forget it; I was only responding to the linux-2.4 part of the > thread. I think the alternative OS side of things has already been > addressed sufficiently[1,2,3,4,5], and given that we have other HAL > dependencies in the desktop, I'm honestly quite surprised that anyone > thinks that this should hold back the inclusion of g-p-m. In fact, I > really doubt anyone does -- I personally don't see how the argument > makes any sense and I'm guessing that it's merely being used as an > excuse by those who don't like the notification-area thing. ;-) And > while I can feel some sympathy for the notification-area thing, no one > is trying to provide any solutions to the reasons why it is being used > and I personally don't see why this should hold back g-p-m's > inclusion. But, as always, that's just my $0.02 and wild guesses. :)
I am not opposing g-p-m. Most of the problems that it has had have been addressed or are being addressed. I was simply pointing out that we should not break our current level of service for non-HAL-enabled patrons. I have suggested a solution for fixing the notification-area abuse, which will avoid putting a timeline on fixing panel and will still be quite useful when panel is fixed :) --d -- Davyd Madeley http://www.davyd.id.au/ 08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118 C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
