From owner-freebsd-gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 5 18:17:31 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56CD316A4CE; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 18:17:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from lakemtao05.cox.net (lakemtao05.cox.net [68.1.17.116]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E13443D31; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 18:17:29 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from mezz7@cox.net) Received: from mezz.mezzweb.com ([68.103.32.11]) by lakemtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20040106021729.LIVS29834.lakemtao05.cox.net@mezz.mezzweb.com>; Mon, 5 Jan 2004 21:17:29 -0500 To: Adam Weinberger References: <1073346203.765.210.camel@gyros> <20040106015049.GM27144@toxic.magnesium.net> Message-ID: From: Jeremy Messenger Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 20:16:39 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20040106015049.GM27144@toxic.magnesium.net> User-Agent: Opera7.23/Linux M2 build 518 cc: FreeBSD GNOME Users cc: Joe Marcus Clarke Subject: Re: RFC: Restructuring GNOME meta-ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-gnome@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: GNOME for FreeBSD -- porting and maintaining List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 02:17:31 -0000 On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 20:50:49 -0500, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>> (01.05.2004 @ 1843 PST): Joe Marcus Clarke said, in 1.9K: << >> I was thinking maybe we should borrow something from garnome seeing as >> since they've borrowed practically everything from us already ;-) (the >> ports system, that is). What if we restructured the GNOME meta-ports to >> look something like this: >> >> x11/gnome2 (leave it the way it is) >> x11/gnome2-lite (leave it the way it is) > > I would rather see an x11/gnome2-desktop port, and have x11/gnome2 be a > metaport for the Whole Damn Thing. Or, well... I think there should be a > meta meta port. Or, opposite? x11/gnome2-desktop have the Whole Damn Thing. I think, x11/gnome2 should be stick to what www.gnome.org has. > Also, I think that gnome2-lite could also perhaps be made to be a meta > meta port. > >> x11/gnome2-fifth-toe (Will consist of the following): >> graphics/gthumb2 news/pan2 net/gnomeicu2 >> x11-toolkits/gnome-themes-extras sysutils/gkrellm >> graphics/gimp-devel www/bluefish-devel >> net/tsclient graphics/sodipodi graphics/inkscape is doing a lot better than graphics/sodipodi now, so should be either add or replace imo. > I'd like to see maybe an entertainment category. Totem, rhythmbox, > xchat2, gossip, gnomeicu2, etc. Maybe a systemtools category that > contains gftp, gnomenetwork, etc. Dunno where all of this leaves gkrellm > and gdesklets, but I think that they should be in the same category. > Besides, gdesklets seems to be becoming more popular than gkrellm2, > development of which seems to have slowed to a halt. I couldn't see how gkrellm can be part of Gnome, so I am disagree for gkrellm to be part of Gnome's meta port. Anyway, it won't be easy to make that kind of decision...too many apps.. :-) Cheers, Mezz > # Adam > > > -- > Adam Weinberger > vectors.cx >> adam@vectors.cx >> http://www.vectors.cx > magnesium.net << adamw@magnesium.net << http://www.magnesium.net/~adamw > FreeBSD >> adamw@FreeBSD.org >> http://people.freebsd.org/~adamw > #vim:set ts=8: 8-char tabs prevent tooth decay. -- bsdforums.org 's moderator, mezz.