I strongly support inclusion of MATE.
Why not packaging GNOME 2 directly?
GNOME 2 and GNOME 3 are not parallel installable. And MATE renamed binaries.
Why not GNOME Fallback?
It is dropped in GNOME 3.8
It is indeed different from GNOME 2, though non-heavy users may not
notice the difference.
It
It is so unfortunate that this matter has become so emotional. No
wonder. The gnome people worked so hard to create what they believe to
be even better desktop. And Linux community's response was
overwhelmingly negative (including public and rather outspoken
statements by major Linux
Il 2012-10-21 01:15 Josselin Mouette ha scritto:
Most issues people have with GNOME 3 “classic” usually boil down to
“the
panel is black instead of grey”.
I dont think so. There are a lot of differences between MATE and GNOME
fallback. Some examples: the new layout of all applications with
Hello,
I would like to support the inclusion of MATE in Debian. While I'm not
sure whether MATE is ready yet for the inclusion in Debian due to the
aforementioned issues (plus the MATE Debian packages aren't aware
of Multi-Arch), I am confident that bringing MATE to Debian would be a
wise choice.
Le samedi 20 octobre 2012 à 19:05 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz a
écrit :
We have recently started to deploy Debian Wheezy on some of the
machines to be able to do some testing in the real world.
Unfortunately, the feedback we received regarding GNOME3 so far
is mostly negative.
* Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org) wrote:
Most issues people have with GNOME 3 ???classic??? usually boil down to ???the
panel is black instead of grey???.
Mine are generally more of the larger scale; things like not being able
to do 2d arrays of desktops any more, options I use being
Hi Dimitry,
Even worse, this will increase the incompatibility between
different desktops. For example, an app making use of gconftool-2 will
not work when there's mateconftool-2 in the system instead.
Is this said from experience??? I have no problem using gnome apps
along side with
I agree with Josselin here. There is no point in forking gconf and other
libraries. Even worse, this will increase the incompatibility between
different desktops. For example, an app making use of gconftool-2 will
not work when there's mateconftool-2 in the system instead.
If you want to fix a
I'd like to support the proposal to package MATE.
While I agree there is code duplication, that's obviously something that
will take some time to remove, however I also believe it's important
not to wait until it's cleaned.
There are many users who do not want to change their desktop from
their
Le mercredi 08 février 2012 à 00:53 +0100, Stefano Karapetsas a écrit :
Many users are using it well. Now that this is enough stable, I begun
the process for ask the inclusion in Debian.
The first package is mate-common.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=658783 (ITP)
On 08/02/12 09:55, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le mercredi 08 février 2012 à 00:53 +0100, Stefano Karapetsas a écrit
:
Many users are using it well. Now that this is enough stable, I
begun the process for ask the inclusion in Debian. The first
package is mate-common.
Il 2012-02-08 11:44 Mehdi Dogguy ha scritto:
On 08/02/12 09:55, Josselin Mouette wrote:
MATE introduces a lot of code duplication, which is considered bad
in Debian, and is based on obsolete technologies - not just GTK2,
which will of course remain for a long time, but also things like
Bonobo
On 08/02/12 14:05, Stefano Karapetsas wrote:
I saw some gnome design team mockups of all applications, and I find
its far from GNOME2.
Then, why don't you help them? (It is easier than re-packaging and
maintaining Gnome2).
Regards,
--
Mehdi
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Il 2012-02-08 14:23 Mehdi Dogguy ha scritto:
I saw some gnome design team mockups of all applications, and I find
its far from GNOME2.
Then, why don't you help them? (It is easier than re-packaging and
maintaining Gnome2).
Regards,
I just answered before. GNOME3 is a completely different
Le mercredi 08 février 2012 à 14:05 +0100, Stefano Karapetsas a écrit :
Yeah. In our roadmap there is the dismissal of the obsolete libraries,
like the replacement of MateConf (the fork of GConf) with GSettings,
and
so on.
Sorry but what is the point of *forking* GConf? What does it bring,
Il 2012-02-08 14:41 Josselin Mouette ha scritto:
Le mercredi 08 février 2012 à 14:05 +0100, Stefano Karapetsas a écrit
:
Yeah. In our roadmap there is the dismissal of the obsolete
libraries,
like the replacement of MateConf (the fork of GConf) with GSettings,
and
so on.
Sorry but what is the
Le mercredi 08 février 2012 à 14:52 +0100, Stefano Karapetsas a écrit :
GConf is deprecated. MateConf is born to have a temporary solution
until
we choose the replacement for it.
GConf is deprecated, but it is still maintained. It is still used e.g.
by evolution.
I don’t see the point of
Il 2012-02-08 15:23 Josselin Mouette ha scritto:
GConf is deprecated, but it is still maintained. It is still used
e.g.
by evolution.
I don’t see the point of renaming it, starting another daemon, and
whatnot, if you provide the same functionality. If you want to keep
maintaining GConf for
18 matches
Mail list logo
