On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:15:12 +0200, Dexter Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2011/6/9 JA Magallón <[email protected]>: > > On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 10:49:18 +0100, Colin Guthrie <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> 'Twas brillig, and Wolfgang Bornath at 09/06/11 10:25 did gyre and gimble: > >> > 2011/6/9 JA Magallón <[email protected]>: > >> >> > >> >> No need, Cauldron is Cauldron. The only strange thing is that I had > >> >> heard on other threads that update to Gnome 3 was being discussed, > >> >> but never realized it had finally agreed on. > >> > > >> > Same here, I'm a bit surprised. > >> > >> We're on the next cycle now. Quite frankly I'd be stunned (and hugely > >> disappointed) if we *didn't* have Gnome 3! > >> > >> Providing a Gnome2 environment or not is likely the point that need > >> discussion :D > >> One other question (that's what pedantic users are for, isn't it ;) ). Now we have: gnome-desktop-2.32.1-1.mga1 gnome-desktop3-3.0.2-1.mga2 The old one just contains a bunch of generic icons. You could post a new gnome-desktop-3.0.x and obsolete both... As Gnome moves to 3, no suffix is needed. If ever one is, it would be for gnome2 packages one future day, isn't it ? TIA -- J.A. Magallon <jamagallon()ono!com> \ Winter is coming...
