Alan Coopersmith wrote: > I am sponsoring this case for myself and the Vino project team. > I have marked it closed approved automatic - speak up soon if you object! > This case requests a patch release binding.
I don't think this meets automatic approval, I'd prefer to see it run as a fast-track. This case introduces a second vncviewer client, why do we need this one and Vino ? Why should this one and not Vino be /usr/bin/vncviewer ? I also don't think Volatile as the only classification for a vncviewer is acceptable - particularly given that it is a core component of how xVM is used and tools like virt-install(1M) need to call it. I can appreciated that not all functionality is Committed but I'm sure there is something about a vncviewer that could be Committed - in particular some of the core arguments about where to connect to. -- Darren J Moffat
