Difference between revisions of "Talk:Enlightenment"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Should we remove easy_e17?)
 
m (easy_e17 removal: Remove deleted discussion.)
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The easy_e17 section needs to be updated or deleted. It's no longer valid with most of the programs moved to Git; the author has made large changes to  the script, now called easy_efl. Anyone use this, or want to use this, and can update the section? Really, I think the -git PKGBUILDs in the AUR are a better option and would be in favor of just removing this section. [[User:Scimmia|Scimmia]] ([[User talk:Scimmia|talk]]) 02:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
+
== e17-themes removal? ==
 +
I think the e17-themes package shouldn't be proposed to the new users. It has problems with EFM (at least in my installation: [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=162779 EFM's contents only can be seen with the default theme]. That leads to frustration that could drive potential users away of enlightenment. --[[User:Bruno.unna|Bruno.unna]] ([[User talk:Bruno.unna|talk]]) 23:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 +
:I would have no problem with removing this, but it can be useful. Maybe just a note that some of the themes in the package may not work right? This is why I'm not a fan of "collection" type packages. [[User:Scimmia|Scimmia]] ([[User talk:Scimmia|talk]]) 06:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
::I kind of agree with you, Scimmia, only problem is that "some of the themes in the package may not work right" is an overstatement: the only fully working theme in the package is "default"!  :) --[[User:Bruno.unna|Bruno.unna]] ([[User talk:Bruno.unna|talk]]) 10:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:55, 8 May 2013

e17-themes removal?

I think the e17-themes package shouldn't be proposed to the new users. It has problems with EFM (at least in my installation: EFM's contents only can be seen with the default theme. That leads to frustration that could drive potential users away of enlightenment. --Bruno.unna (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I would have no problem with removing this, but it can be useful. Maybe just a note that some of the themes in the package may not work right? This is why I'm not a fan of "collection" type packages. Scimmia (talk) 06:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I kind of agree with you, Scimmia, only problem is that "some of the themes in the package may not work right" is an overstatement: the only fully working theme in the package is "default"!  :) --Bruno.unna (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)