On Saturday 06 September 2003 17:39, Abel Cheung wrote:
> On 2003-09-06(Sat) 16:40:38 +0200, andre wrote:
> > You can't add it because the png for rxvt is also removed. That may be an
> > ugly icon but it is needed to not have a bad icon
>
> Then probably some better icon can be done to replace it,
On 2003-09-06(Sat) 16:40:38 +0200, andre wrote:
> On Saturday 06 September 2003 15:51, Vincent Meyer, MD wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 September 2003 07:52 pm, David Walser wrote:
> > > David Baudens wrote:
> > > > xterm is installed if KDE or GNOME are not installed.
> > >
> > > So? xterm != rxvt. A
Luca Berra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > at first, i strongly disagree with dadou violation of the
> > packaging policy.
> >
> > but now i think that dadou thoughs is that we'll quite always
> > install rxvt since it's required by drakconf, even if user has not
> > asked for terminals.
> >
> >
On Saturday 06 September 2003 15:51, Vincent Meyer, MD wrote:
> On Thursday 04 September 2003 07:52 pm, David Walser wrote:
> > David Baudens wrote:
> > > xterm is installed if KDE or GNOME are not installed.
> >
> > So? xterm != rxvt. Anyway, xterm sucks.
> >
> > Like someone else said, why don'
On Saturday 06 September 2003 16:04, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> "Vincent Meyer, MD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > xterm is installed if KDE or GNOME are not installed.
> > >
> > > So? xterm != rxvt. Anyway, xterm sucks.
> > >
> > > Like someone else said, why don't we remove Koffice and Mozil
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 04:04:15PM +0200, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
at first, i strongly disagree with dadou violation of the packaging policy.
but now i think that dadou thoughs is that we'll quite always install
rxvt since it's required by drakconf, even if user has not asked for
terminals.
the lon
"Vincent Meyer, MD" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > xterm is installed if KDE or GNOME are not installed.
> >
> > So? xterm != rxvt. Anyway, xterm sucks.
> >
> > Like someone else said, why don't we remove Koffice and Mozilla's menu
> > entries? Why, OO.o and Konq are already in the menu! No
On Thursday 04 September 2003 07:52 pm, David Walser wrote:
> David Baudens wrote:
> > xterm is installed if KDE or GNOME are not installed.
>
> So? xterm != rxvt. Anyway, xterm sucks.
>
> Like someone else said, why don't we remove Koffice and Mozilla's menu
> entries? Why, OO.o and Konq are al
On Friday 05 September 2003 01.51, David Walser wrote:
> David Baudens wrote:
> > I don't understand why people want always install a terminal. Most of
> > users don't need it. If you need one, simply choose Consoles tools
> > category when you can choose which packages should be installed. And if
David Baudens wrote:
> xterm is installed if KDE or GNOME are not installed.
So? xterm != rxvt. Anyway, xterm sucks.
Like someone else said, why don't we remove Koffice and Mozilla's menu entries? Why,
OO.o and Konq are already in the menu! No, that makes no sense. Policy is all
graphical
David Baudens wrote:
> I don't understand why people want always install a terminal. Most of users
> don't need it. If you need one, simply choose Consoles tools category when
> you can choose which packages should be installed. And if you need one
> after installation, simply launch rpmdrake an
andre wrote:
> On Thursday 04 September 2003 02:21, David Baudens wrote:
>> > Why?
>>
>> To not have several terminal emulators in applications menu. Rxvt is
>> always installed (used by MCC) and will be duplicated with other
>> terminals.
> I still don't understand why rxvt shouldn't have a menu e
David Baudens wrote:
>> Why?
>
> To not have several terminal emulators in applications menu. Rxvt is
> always installed (used by MCC) and will be duplicated with other
> terminals.
But they aren't in the applications menu, they're in the Terminals menu.
Why shouldn't each terminal emulator pack
13 matches
Mail list logo
