On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 13:01 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote: > On 9/22/06, Elijah Newren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/22/06, Matthias Clasen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Don't get me wrong, it is of course great to have the latest bugfixes and > > > get > > > dbus release candidates widely tested, but if the focus is on answering > > > the > > > question: "can Gnome x.y be deployed on z ?" we should look at the hard > > > requirements (as in can not work with a version older than...). Maybe > > > we should split the list of external dependencies into required and > > > recommended versions. Then we could have e.g. a required dbus-glib > > > version of 0.70, but recommend 0.71. > > > > Sounds good to me... > > And done -- http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointSeventeen/ExternalDependencies > has been split into minimum versions and recommended versions, with > the minimum versions being lowered for the three tarballs you pointed > out and the recommended versions being bumped higher for the important > ones Kjartan pointed out.
Looks good. Might be worth discussing libnotify now we are on the topic of library deps. For gnome-power-manager 2.17.1 I'm in the unpleasant situation of requiring CVS HEAD for libnotify to work 'correctly' because of a bug[1] in the latest release for the GtkStatusIcon handling. I think we should aim for libnotify-0.4.3 for 2-17 as it should be easier to compile than libvolume_id. That was a joke btw. JOKE! :-) On a more serious note, is libnotify "blessed" as a hard dep yet? Richard. [1] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356431 _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
