Hey,
On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 18:53 -0500, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote:
> > On a related subject, what are the timescales for
> > basing GNOME on GNOME 2.10 or 2.12 (for those of us who don't want
> > to compile form scratch)?
>
> I agree it would be nice to put some binary packages out there.
> Productising a new version of GNOME and getting it into Solaris is
> a lot of work. We don't want to do it very often (;
So let's do it on opensolaris.org as a unbundled set of packages [1] -
as part of our due diligence work, we have the approval to be able to
provide a set of binaries for people to download and install. We didn't
get the time to do it last time around, but I reckon we may be able to
squeeze it through this time. Laca, feel free to dump on that suggestion
if you think it's unrealistic ;)
> Our GNOME 2.12 sources should be on opensolaris.org by the end of
> this week. We will then move on to GNOME 2.13.x (unstable,
> development) which will become GNOME 2.14 (stable) in mid-March.
> 2.14 is likely to be our next the version of GNOME in Nevada.
We're actually thinking about a 2 part migration for Nevada - putting a
GNOME 2.12 based version in after Christmas, and then following it up a
few months later with GNOME 2.14 which will likely coordinate better
with the various Nevada schedule dates. That's a very tentative plan at
the moment though.
We had a pretty interesting session at the desktop summit we held
internally over the last 2 weeks, which was basically a desktop gripe
session. Over a short hour, people shouted out issues they had with the
desktop. I'll be doing a write up of that session sometime soon, but I'm
pretty pleased that we've solved a number of issues people were
experiencing in 2.6.
Glynn
[1] I'm actually surprised that no one published their set of packages
that they built from the sources - seriously people, what gives? :)
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
