Alan Coopersmith wrote: > Kyle McDonald wrote: > >> a) Xscreensaver. The dependency on GTK might be solved similiar to >> DBUS and HAL with packaging. It's my suggestion though that if the >> dependencies for XscreenSaver were considered harder, then a better >> solution might have been found for integrating the Accessibility >> technology into it. For instance it could have been coded to dynamically >> load (and call into) the accessibility libs only if they were present. >> >> This would have allowed it to be installed and function with out >> any GNOME packages, and the the dependencies they bring, and yet would >> have enable that functionality if they were present. >> > > The missing link here is deciding it's worthwhile to do that work. > Yes. I expected that there will be times when the work is considered too large a job for the immediate timeframe.
It was just the best example I could come up with, to show what I was thinking of, and explain where I think the *process* should change to at least stop, consider options like this and make a consious decision whether to require the work be done now, postpone it for the future, or skip it forever. Maybe this happens now. But I get the (possibly wrong) feeling that some of these things aren't really even thought about. > When xscreensaver was added to Solaris during one of the Solaris 9 > update releases it was explicitly to provide a screensaver for the > GNOME 2.0 desktop. Making it depend on GTK+ was a goal of that > work - making it installable without any GNOME libraries was not, > and is still not a goal today for those at Sun paid to do this work. > > These resource constraints are always going to exist. Even if a community memeber wnated to make these changes, it seems to me that they'll always be playing catchup, always be after the fact, because I don't see any company allowing the community to say "Wait, don't integrate that until we have a chance to do all the other work that we think needs to be done, that you're not willing to pay for." So what can we do to stop situations like these from even being introduced into solaris to begin with? -Kyle > If a community member felt that this was so worthwhile to put in the > work themselves, the code is open, and we take contributions, but Sun > has no reason to spend its resources doing it ourselves. > > _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
