Le lundi 10 avril 2006 à 17:00 -0400, Rodney Dawes a écrit :
It has just come to my attention that one of the GNOME Goals is to port
GNOME to using the po/LINGUAS file for 2.16, rather than having the
LINGUAS listed directly in configure.{in,ac}.
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/PoLinguas is
It has just come to my attention that one of the GNOME Goals is to port
GNOME to using the po/LINGUAS file for 2.16, rather than having the
LINGUAS listed directly in configure.{in,ac}.
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeGoals/PoLinguas is the link for the page
which describes the process for doing this.
On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 17:00 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote:
On another note, can we please discuss major changes such as this, on
this list, before deciding on making them goals that people should be
working on?
I agree - The popt goal hit me totally out of the blue too.
I've noticed on the
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Rodney Dawes wrote:
On another note, can we please discuss major changes such as this, on
this list, before deciding on making them goals that people should be
working on?
Completely agreed. As someone who wrote one of the current
goals, I was a bit scared by how the
On 4/10/06, Rodney Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we really want to do this, let's do it right and not with a hacky
workaround because people are afraid to depend on newer versions of
things for some reason.
gnome goal #3: port everything to a modern version of automake!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Completely agreed. As someone who wrote one of the current
goals, I was a bit scared by how the goal went live with review
from only three people, and it could have been flawed seriously.
In this case (AppIcons) it probably
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Adam Schreiber wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
Completely agreed. As someone who wrote one of the current
goals, I was a bit scared by how the goal went live with review
from only three people, and it could have been
Martin Wehner wrote:
I've noticed on the wiki, that several maintainers have
already committed the hackily annoying patches.
That includes me. Are there any potential build problems with the way
described on the Wiki? Or is it just unclean?
It is yet another hack that would need to
Iain * wrote:
On 4/10/06, Rodney Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we really want to do this, let's do it right and not with a hacky
workaround because people are afraid to depend on newer versions of
things for some reason.
gnome goal #3: port everything to a modern version of
