Bug#155680: PROPOSAL ] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:43:06PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: Well, are we basically in rough consensus about this now? Here's an updated patch which just makes the priority increase 20 instead of 30. I don't object. -- G. Branden Robinson| I came, I saw, she conquered. Debian GNU/Linux | The original Latin seems to have [EMAIL PROTECTED] | been garbled. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein pgperRl9lvLjG.pgp Description: PGP signature
Processed: Re: Bug#155680: PROPOSAL ] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: retitle 155680 [ACCEPTED] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP Bug#155680: [ PROPOSAL ] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP Changed Bug title. thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database)
Bug#155680: PROPOSAL ] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:43:06PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: Well, are we basically in rough consensus about this now? Here's an updated patch which just makes the priority increase 20 instead of 30. There's still one the too much. - Sebastian
Bug#155680: PROPOSAL ] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 03:13, Sebastian Rittau wrote: On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 10:43:06PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: Well, are we basically in rough consensus about this now? Here's an updated patch which just makes the priority increase 20 instead of 30. There's still one the too much. Oops. I forgot to fix that. Well, we'll just remember to do that before it goes in. Thanks.
Bug#155680: PROPOSAL ] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP
Package: debian-policy Severity: normal Tags: patch The attached patch should speak for itself. This came about because users would often install 'x-window-system' (installs twm) and 'gnome2' (installs metacity) in order to get a GNOME 2 desktop, but twm had a higher alternatives priority than metacity. I think this is wrong, because at least metacity will work with the standard desktop hinting systems...twm basically makes GNOME 2 (and presumably KDE) unusable. seconded Christian
Re: Bug#155680: [ PROPOSAL ] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP
Colin Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Package: debian-policy Severity: normal Tags: patch The attached patch should speak for itself. This came about because users would often install 'x-window-system' (installs twm) and 'gnome2' (installs metacity) in order to get a GNOME 2 desktop, but twm had a higher alternatives priority than metacity. I think this is wrong, because at least metacity will work with the standard desktop hinting systems...twm basically makes GNOME 2 (and presumably KDE) unusable. Actually, I would do the contrary, because since it aims at supporting kde and gnome, it does not enhance your system but it rather bloats it. So instead of being a plus, it is a minus ;-) So every wm that does not support kde and gnome should have a higher priority ;-) Cheers, -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
Bug#155680: PROPOSAL ] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 02:16:32PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: + If the window manager complies with the url [the netwm spec] + name=Free Desktop Group, add 30 points. Hmm, 30 points is a lot. That would mean that a netwm-compliant window manager which didn't support the Debian menu system would rank higher than a non-netwm system which did. I'm not sure I'm willing to go that far. Right now we have 20 points for menu, and 10 points for the ability to restart a different window manager. How about if we go for 30 points for menu, 20 points for netwm, and 10 for switching? Or something like that? I definitely have mixed feelings about this whole thing. I'd like gnome to work hassle-free out of the box, but I'd also like to have the *best* window manager be default, even for our users that don't use gnome. I think that a netwm alternative might actually be the best approach all around, even if it is a little more complicated. (I still want to hear what Branden has to say about all of this, too.) -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico-to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
Bug#155680: PROPOSAL ] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP
On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 10:44:15AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote: Hmm, 30 points is a lot. That would mean that a netwm-compliant window manager which didn't support the Debian menu system would rank higher than a non-netwm system which did. I'm not sure I'm willing to go that far. Me neither. I definitely have mixed feelings about this whole thing. I'd like gnome to work hassle-free out of the box, but I'd also like to have the *best* window manager be default, even for our users that don't use gnome. I think that a netwm alternative might actually be the best approach all around, even if it is a little more complicated. I am tempted to agree. (I still want to hear what Branden has to say about all of this, too.) I haven't firmly made up my mind yet. Can someone tell me what the relationship between WMSP, netwm, and the EWMH spec is? -- G. Branden Robinson|Religion is regarded by the common Debian GNU/Linux |people as true, by the wise as [EMAIL PROTECTED] |false, and by the rulers as useful. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |-- Lucius Annaeus Seneca pgpyTbpCSxcoH.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#155680: [ PROPOSAL ] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP
Package: debian-policy Severity: normal Tags: patch The attached patch should speak for itself. This came about because users would often install 'x-window-system' (installs twm) and 'gnome2' (installs metacity) in order to get a GNOME 2 desktop, but twm had a higher alternatives priority than metacity. I think this is wrong, because at least metacity will work with the standard desktop hinting systems...twm basically makes GNOME 2 (and presumably KDE) unusable. --- debian-policy-3.5.6.1/policy.sgml 2002-03-14 13:17:48.0 -0500 +++ debian-policy-3.5.6.1.hacked/policy.sgml2002-08-06 14:09:01.0 -0400 @@ -6798,6 +6798,15 @@ configuration, add 10 points; otherwise add none. /p /item + item + p + If the window manager complies with the url + id=http://www.freedesktop.org/standards/wm-spec.html; + name=The Window Manager Specification Project, + written by the url id=http://www.freedesktop.org; + name=Free Desktop Group, add 30 points. + /p + /item /list /p /sect1
Bug#155680: PROPOSAL ] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 02:16:32PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: --- debian-policy-3.5.6.1/policy.sgml 2002-03-14 13:17:48.0 -0500 +++ debian-policy-3.5.6.1.hacked/policy.sgml 2002-08-06 14:09:01.0 -0400 @@ -6798,6 +6798,15 @@ configuration, add 10 points; otherwise add none. /p /item + item + p + If the window manager complies with the url + id=http://www.freedesktop.org/standards/wm-spec.html; + name=The Window Manager Specification Project, + written by the url id=http://www.freedesktop.org; + name=Free Desktop Group, add 30 points. + /p + /item /list /p /sect1 Remove the superfluous the, and count this as a second (or probably a third, fourth, etc.) - Sebastian
Bug#155680: PROPOSAL ] bump priority of window managers which support WMSP
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 02:16:32PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: The attached patch should speak for itself. This came about because users would often install 'x-window-system' (installs twm) and 'gnome2' (installs metacity) in order to get a GNOME 2 desktop, but twm had a higher alternatives priority than metacity. I'd like to hear some feedback from X experts on this, esp. Branden. I also think it would be good if Gnome had some sort of tropism for metacity/sawfish outside of the x-window-manager alternative, but that's somewhat orthogonal to this proposal. However, I have a gut feeling that window managers which provide more functionality emon their own/em should generally have higher priority than those which don't. Unfortunately, I have the impression that this would doom metacity to a fairly low priority. Which is why I think Gnome should have its own internal tropism for its favored window managers. I'd also like to hear from the KDE, XFCE and GNUstep camps, to see if they really buy into this new standard you refer to. But bottom line, if Branden approves, then I will probably go along. -- Chris Waters | Pneumonoultra-osis is too long [EMAIL PROTECTED] | microscopicsilico-to fit into a single or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | volcaniconi- standalone haiku
