On Sun, June 3, 2012 3:31 am, Frederic Peters wrote: > Hi Karen, > >> I asked him for guidance so that we weren't nominating packages that >> were too far afield and he said: these should be pretty conservative and >> either kernel related and threaded thereto >> >> The packages currently included, with their version numbers, are here: >> http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_linuxdefpop_table1_2.php >> >> and here: >> http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_linuxdefpop_table3.php >> >> Do any of you have any suggestions? I'd ordinarily love to coordinate >> with >> KDE and others, but with such a tight turn around, we'll have to try >> that >> next time... > > I looked at those tables and the second one (compiled as of May 2012) > lists pretty much all of GNOME modules, in their 3.2 versions. If > we're supposed to be conservative and decide to stay at 3.2, we should > simply ask for the inclusion of missing modules (because it looks like > version numbers were updated, but at its basis it's still mostly > modules that composed GNOME 2, e.g. gnome-shell is missing). > > Do you think this makes sense? In that case it would be easy to > provide a table with module name, version number, download URL.
Fred, That makes a lot of sense, thanks! I'll email Keith and cc you - hopefully we'll have enough time to put this together before they meet (sorry I checked my email this morning but didn't see this or would have responded sooner)... karen _______________________________________________ [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team Release-team lurker? Do NOT participate in discussions.
