kubuntu slideshow

Dylan McCall dylanmccall at gmail.com
Tue Sep 15 06:06:01 BST 2009

> Thanks for making those changes.
> I am not keen on the approach of maintaining copies under kubuntu/ of
> only a slightly modified part of the javascript library, the rest of
> it completely unmodified, and some of the slides.  If we make the
> smallest of changes, we have to make them in two places, and my
> experience with oem-config and ubiquity leads me to believe that we'll
> often forget.  Can you not refactor this so the modification is
> layered on top of the common code, and that shared pages are generated
> in both build directories at build time?

I'm concerned about this, too, staring at the branch again. It's
definitely a useful effort, but I think, right now, it feels like a
jumble in places. (And don't take that the wrong way; most of the
jumbliness is my own doing). On the one hand I can see the benefit of
having a shared source package, but on the other it's stretching in a
way that may be really tough to maintain.

By refactoring it, we would probably kill the ability to preview a slide
without building anything, (so a "make test" command would be nice).
"slides/link" can go up a level, then a different slides directory can
exist for each variation and that can be duplicated without messing up
anything else. The build script could pick through them automatically,
instead of having a duplicate target for each one.

We could bump into issues with different look & feel being pursued for
each distribution. If each variation of the slideshow shares resources
such as the icon decorating gimp-fu script, we'll end up with either one
script that has multiple options within (and a general.css with 4
different versions of "#container") or each variation containing its own
slightly (but not quite) duplicate variety of each script, for example
to sharpen the reflections on icons.
However, if look & feel isn't going to be a concern and all that will
change ever is content, then this can be pretty easy.

...Which, to be honest, lands me back at a thought: /why not/ just
maintain a distinct branch / project for the kubuntu / xubuntu / etc.
versions? I suspect there is some history here that I am missing which
explains away this doubt of mine, though. I often put too much trust in
fancy gadgets :)

> You're missing a copyright notice for the Kubuntu logo.
Roman, did you forget to push that? I only see the two revisions from
the merge request that was made a while ago.

> Also, I would argue that we shouldn't keep the UI files in this
> package.  It should simply be content viewable in a browser, not a
> special widget.  Leave the task of creating a UI to ubiquity.
Those are for the preview script, I think. In my own branch of the
branch I moved them to a "test" directory to get things better

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-installer/attachments/20090915/7b0481eb/attachment.pgp 

More information about the Ubuntu-installer mailing list