> Thanks for making those changes. > > I am not keen on the approach of maintaining copies under kubuntu/ of > only a slightly modified part of the javascript library, the rest of > it completely unmodified, and some of the slides. If we make the > smallest of changes, we have to make them in two places, and my > experience with oem-config and ubiquity leads me to believe that we'll > often forget. Can you not refactor this so the modification is > layered on top of the common code, and that shared pages are generated > in both build directories at build time?
I'm concerned about this, too, staring at the branch again. It's definitely a useful effort, but I think, right now, it feels like a jumble in places. (And don't take that the wrong way; most of the jumbliness is my own doing). On the one hand I can see the benefit of having a shared source package, but on the other it's stretching in a way that may be really tough to maintain. By refactoring it, we would probably kill the ability to preview a slide without building anything, (so a "make test" command would be nice). "slides/link" can go up a level, then a different slides directory can exist for each variation and that can be duplicated without messing up anything else. The build script could pick through them automatically, instead of having a duplicate target for each one. We could bump into issues with different look & feel being pursued for each distribution. If each variation of the slideshow shares resources such as the icon decorating gimp-fu script, we'll end up with either one script that has multiple options within (and a general.css with 4 different versions of "#container") or each variation containing its own slightly (but not quite) duplicate variety of each script, for example to sharpen the reflections on icons. However, if look & feel isn't going to be a concern and all that will change ever is content, then this can be pretty easy. ...Which, to be honest, lands me back at a thought: /why not/ just maintain a distinct branch / project for the kubuntu / xubuntu / etc. versions? I suspect there is some history here that I am missing which explains away this doubt of mine, though. I often put too much trust in fancy gadgets :) > > You're missing a copyright notice for the Kubuntu logo. Roman, did you forget to push that? I only see the two revisions from the merge request that was made a while ago. > > Also, I would argue that we shouldn't keep the UI files in this > package. It should simply be content viewable in a browser, not a > special widget. Leave the task of creating a UI to ubiquity. Those are for the preview script, I think. In my own branch of the branch I moved them to a "test" directory to get things better organized. Thanks, Dylan
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Ubuntu-installer mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-installer
