> I think we've all had that idea at one time or another, but sadly it's > based on a misunderstanding of how the community works.
Oh no, I understand that people will be people. I don't expect them to agree. But building systems to validate system integrity doesn't require projects approval directly. Some of this is a distribution/packaging problem and some of it is a system integrity problem. Having a community which then realises the usefulness of new mechanisms to their projects just aims to decrees the burden of work from the packagers and shift it to the projects where it is most efficient. > Projects like GConf tackle this issue in a more Linuxy way: write a > tool, then convince people that they'll get more value for less effort > by using it. If you're really motivated to work on this problem, I > suggest you talk to them about what you can do to help out. Ah the gconf approach, this project suffers from not being able to include existing config files, it excludes people from directly editing text files which has always been a big complaint. And it's a copy of a bad idea from windows (even with a gtk-regedit) with a few of the ideas fixed with regards to user data. Although at least they do have validation, if not the packaging integration. It's not hard to Imagen a sort of fuse-fs solution to bridge the gap and ties into deb/apt although it may not work with what their currently doing. As for your 'go away and come back with the goods' suggestion, I'll take it under advisement while I try and pick holes in the idea first. I'm only interested in building something once I understand everyone's objectives and points of view on the subject. Design the blueprints first then go build the building. I'll be talking more about this at UDS in December if you want to join the session. Best Regards, Martin Owens -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
