-----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-----