[Goodies-dev] git repository layout

Brian J. Tarricone bjt23 at cornell.edu
Sun May 17 02:05:32 CEST 2009

On 05/16/2009 04:48 PM, Christian Dywan wrote:
> Am Sat, 16 May 2009 15:41:14 -0700
> schrieb "Brian J. Tarricone"<bjt23 at cornell.edu>:
>> 5.  The following are undecided, but I'd like to move them to goodies:
>> * xfcalendar (orage)
>> * xfce4-appfinder (maybe not; it's simple and useful; maybe we should
>> even move this into xfce-utils and scrap the separate package)
>> * xfce4-mixer
>> * xfwm4-themes (I think Olivier talked about moving this as well)
> I agree it would be good, if we stick to having a distiction between
> core and goodies, to really move anything non-essential out of the
> core. For what I want, the installer can feature selected goodies and
> prefer them. And distributions choose their own application set anyway.
> As an example, we have two archivers, namely xarchiver and squeeze, and
> some distros choose file roller instead.

Yeah, I'd tend to move toward your view, but it's hard to draw the line.

For me, part of it is a maintenance/support issue.  For example, 
Terminal is in the core now, so it's "blessed" as an Xfce core package. 
  But what happens if there's a bug in it, or someone asks a question on 
the mailing list about it?  Benny's long gone; bugs assigned to him 
rarely get commented on.  No one owns Terminal or works on it. 
Questions and bugs about it just suck up precious time that the few of 
us could better use on other things.  If that means Terminal ends up 
getting orphaned and not released anymore, that sucks, but... that's 
just how it is.  I don't think we should continue to drag it along with 
the rest of Xfce "just because."

It might sound like I'm being harsh on Terminal, but the same could 
probably be said of some other modules.

And then there's the "relevance of core" issue.  What is really a part 
of the core desktop?  What can you leave out and still have what you're 
running be "Xfce"?  I'd say that minimum would be session manager, WM, 
panel, desktop manager, and the various settings dialogs.  But how about 
Thunar?  Not sure.  I wouldn't call it essential to "be Xfce," but I'd 
also still consider it part of the core[1].

>> 6.  There's also some question of what to do with:
>> * gtk-xfce-engine-2 (I think Olivier talked about ditching this
>> package since most people use the Clearlooks engine now?  I dunno, I
>> think people still use it...)
>> * installit (Unmaintained, might want to pull out the current
>> installer builder branch since trunk isn't finished)
>> * terminal (Some people hate terminal because of its issues with ARGB
>> windows; I use it and don't care.  Either way, maybe it's not a core
>> component.  It's not really actively maintained either.)
>> * xfprint (JF doesn't have time to work on this; with printing
>> support in gtk now it's kinda unnecessary, though I believe current
>> mousepad releases depend on it.  Maybe move to archive.)
> I like the gtk-xfce-engine very much because it is... rougher, sharper
> or something, not sure how to describe it. I feel with the Xfce engine
> the widgets have a more distinct outline compared to for instance
> Clearlooks. And I think lots of other people use it as well.

Yeah...  I'm using Murrine-based themes now, but about once a year or so 
I usually get tired of whatever I'm using and switch between that and 
the Clearlooks and Xfce engines.

Honestly I wouldn't want to remove gtk-xfce-engine-2, but I brought it 
up because Olivier had mentioned it as a candidate for removal not too 
long ago.  If there were good reasons to remove it, I'd certainly be 
open to changing my mind.

> With my relatively radical point of view regarding the definition of
> core, I think Terminal should be a goodie. I do like and use Terminal,
> but it's not really tied to Xfce as an environment.


> To me appfinder seems not maintaned enough to be core, from my
> perception anyway. And it doesn't really cooperate with the panel,
> which makes it rather less useful. If integration was improved my
> opinion might be different.

Well, Jannis rewrote most of it last summer, and, aside from the 
integration issues you mention, it works well as-is and requires little 
maintenance.  It's small enough that I wouldn't mind absorbing it into 
another module and just 'dragging it along' since it's useful enough as 
it is and doesn't *need* extra love to continue to be useful.  Some 
extra features would be nice and would certainly enhance it, but aren't 
strictly necessary.


[1] Of course, right now, xfdesktop depends on libthunar-vfs, which is 
shipped with Thunar, for some of its (optional but very useful) 

More information about the Xfce4-dev mailing list