--- Eric Boutilier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ken mays wrote: > > >--- Glynn Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > >>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)? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>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? :) > >> > >> > >> > > > >You have a valid point in which where is the new > JDS > >'binaries' posted based on GNOME 2.12.x?? I'd > thought > >of a simple FTP area (like where Schillix and > Belenix > >are mirrored). I've been reviewing and working on > the > >vanilla GNOME 2.12.2 for Blastwave and would hate > to > >duplicate work being done by the JDS team (i.e. I > need > >to spend more time on KDE 3.5.x anyhow!). > > > >GNOME for Solaris needs to evolve between the > >community developers and Sun engineers to we have a > >more unified system to deliver the binaries to > >everyone on all of the current distributions > >(Solaris-Solaris Express). Although it is fun to > learn > >and build GNOME/JDS from source tarballs, it is a > >thought to provide the latest GNOME/JDS binaries to > >everyone to get more TESTING and bug reporting done > to > >improve the JDS/GNOME experience on Solaris. ;oP > > > >Something to think about? > > > > > > > +1. So you're basically suggesting having a > CSW/Blastwave Solaris build > environment (would it be Solaris 8?) based on the > JDS/Nevada sources, > correct? Any sense of how difficult that would be? > E.g. how much would > the sources have to be tailored to build properly on > say, Solaris 8? > > Eric Well, I'll await Glynn's notes from the desktop summit. Whatever Sun and the community think is the best way to move forward in supporting GNOME on Solaris. I'll await the release of the JDS GNOME 2.12.x binaries on Friday to see where everything stands. We just received the Evolution 2.4.2.1 tarballs and wondered if this would be included in the JDS upcoming release as well. This is where communications between the JDS team and the community developers would be helpful. ~ Ken M. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
