Re: =?utf-8?q?Re:_signup_for_Desktop_tasks?_and_"ports"?_and_plugin_detection?=

[Anne Bennett <anne%porcupine.montreal.qc.ca@localhost>]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, David Brownlee wrote:

> > That concerns me because the whole philosophy behind the project is
> > "of course it runs NetBSD".  There's not much point using NetBSD as a
> > basis for a desktop project and then turning around and violating its
> > most basic tenet.
>
> By that reasoning you might argue we should not have the existing desktop
> packages as they would not run on a vax? likewise the i386 linux compat
> code from the kernel and x86 packages from pkgsrc, oh and xen too.

No, I don't think I'd go that far.

> Andrew and I have different opinions on the value of supporting older
> hardware :), but we would both agree that netbsd should take full advantage
> of and be highly performant on modern hardware, and the fact that certain
> software or features will not work on older machines (x86 or otherwise)
> should not prevent it from being enabled in a netbsd-desktop package
> targetted at fast x86 boxes.

That's not unreasonable, but I hope when we're faced with a decision
to select one software package or another for an equivalent purpose,
that considerable weight will be given to the idea that the software
package should run on all of the ports, if feasible.  I think that's
more important than having all possible bells and whistles.

> The package shoud be buildable and installable on other ports, though it
> will obviously omit certain subpackages such as the linux compat flash
> player. It may not make sense to run the package on some machines, but how
> does that differ from the gnome package today?

I agree.

Anne.