-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 >> What was the point of hiding the wallpapers by moving them to the >> obsolete >> folder? It seems to me that the artwork package can increase somewhat >> in >> size without ill effects as it is optional and storage space has >> drastically increased over the past decade or more. >> I know several of the wallpapers in that folder are "old standbys" to >> users here; I don't see why we can't ship them normally. > > My original idea was to remove sevaral more old-style wallpapers and add a > few more modern ones. > After discussions on this ML (mainly with E. and Alex), we decided to > change only a few ones to prevent estranging the final users, at the same > time without overpopulating the list of available wallpapers when tdebase > and tdeartwork were installed (the list is already too long IMO). Further, > we decided to make the removed wallpapers "manually" available in case it > was necessary., that's why there is the 'obsolete' folder. > > There is no problem in changing things again if required, as long as we > all agree on a final version (either use the obsolete folder as it is now > or just leave of the wallpapers available). > > Cheers > Michele I don't remember the discussion, so I may have just overlooked this part of it. I would like to keep the wallpapers available instead of using the obsolete folder. A better long-term solution would be to borrow the tree interface idea from the screensaver selection dialog. That way the wallpapers could be generally categorized, e.g. "Legacy", "Modern", "Simple", "Nature", etc. Tim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iFYEARELAAYFAlQXsL8ACgkQLaxZSoRZrGHoTQDg0E7gKVfQUaBWX/aqEUYqZDYP Z+T0LBpxSnkIhQDbBonMpADa2ItX2/mGf10Vu9EYHGlWPb+NPkH2kQ== =YBFY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----