On ven, 2008-09-26 at 13:15 +0800, Andrew Lee wrote: > Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > Well, yes, but LXDE didn't really work together with Xfce, as far as > I > > can tell. They ripped the code they need without wanting to improve > > Xfce, so I'm not sure how much they are willing to cooperate. > > On Xfce side, I guess it'll depend on the changes. > > LXDE is a set of standalone components, not a whole desktop like xfce. > Even the goal is different, but I'd think lxde may cooperate together
Well, Xfce is made to be modular, so that's the same kind of goal. In LXDE case they took some softs from various projects, ripped some code from various others, then assemble that in a somewhat desktop environment. I still assume that Xfce would have profited of their knwoledge and time and could have been improved, instead of only taking the code they need. > on > improve some components. eg: xarchiver. Which is not an official Xfce project even if hosted on xfce.org :) The archiver for Xfce is squeeze, which is based on xarchiver but uses Xfce libs. (yet another time/power loss, I guess) > > I will mention this to lxde developers when I meet them. That would be nice, thanks. I > > > I think it'd be nice to warn debian-security though. > > Good idea, I don't have such experience. Please do a nice warn to > debian-security folks, so that they can track this forked libexo. :) They are already aware that it embedds an exo copy and a kind of fork from thunar. I'll just add an update that exo is not a copy but a fork. Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
