tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: LXQt-1.0.0 Window Manager?

pin <> writes:

> I've started the update of LXQt to the newly released 1.0.0
> As of LXQt-0.17.0 the DE claims to be window manager independent and no longer
> offers a configuration file for openbox.

I'm not an lxqt user (and choose to avoid qt whenever I have a choice).

> "LXQt has removed all traces of treating an X11 window manager or compositor in
> special ways. All DE-agnostic X11 WMs can be used with LXQt and distros are
> free to choose one as their default (Openbox, xfwm4, KWin,...).
> Openbox isn't developed anymore, although it's still usable."

So that sounds like pkgsrc (which is not a "distro", but I don't expect
anyone to listen to comments like that ;-) is being urged to pick one so
that users who "install lxqt" get a window manager.

> Regarding obconf-qt, they say,
> "The code hasn't changed since 0.15.0. IMHO, its repository can be archived."

So it sounds like this config is deprecated but perhaps still useful,
and it makes sense to no longer include it in the package, but deleting
the package should depend on the usual "we believe no one is using it"
or "if anyone is using it we feel comfortable telling them that their
continued use is ridiculous, without having any clue about their world
and constraints".

> How would we like to address the LXQt meta-package regading the choice of
> window manager?
> My suggestion is to keep both xfwm4 and openbox as a choice in the meta-package
> but, drop and remove obconf-qt from pkgsrc.

I don't follow "choice". For xfwm4, it seems there would be  a
dependency, and somehow in some lxqt-start script it would get started.

Do you mean "package option"?  If so, is the point to allow someone to
not install xfwm4 and save the bits, or be happier because something
they dislike is not installed?  Or to make life easier than "install
lxqt, install openbox"?  How would this dependency option interact with
config files?

> Alternative, we could shift to xfwm4 only as Siduction (Debian Sid) has done.
> Or, we could simply go with the upstream idea and provide no wm. Although, this
> could scare users that install a DE with no window manager.

I think it's reasonable to choose to align with Debian when there are
multiple options and no clear arguments for any of the choices.

A DE that does not have a wm installed, and doesn't start one by default
when you start it seems like a suboptimal user experience.

So I lean to "just make xfwm4 the WM for lxqt".

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index