On 11/06/2013 05:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 06.11.2013 23:03, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
We don't have a way of telling which updates REQUIRE reboot(*)--but solving
this problem by rebooting always is not right, in my opinion.
This in
Am 06.11.2013 23:03, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Przemek Klosowski
> wrote:
>> We don't have a way of telling which updates REQUIRE reboot(*)--but solving
>> this problem by rebooting always is not right, in my opinion.
>
> This information is already available in
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
> We don't have a way of telling which updates REQUIRE reboot(*)--but solving
> this problem by rebooting always is not right, in my opinion.
This information is already available in bodhi. It's probably not
very accurate, but it is there
On 11/03/2013 08:23 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Michael Scherer wrote:
However, since you didn't explained at all what are the issues you are
facing with the new approach, and since you have only explained how you
are doing on your 20 servers ( which is totally unrelated to the
question of desktops,
Michael Scherer wrote:
> As i say, we mostly have a fleet of laptop, and of course, the situation
> would be different if this was a set of workstation, but alas, this is
> not the case.
It's true that the problem is harder for laptops, which are often more
loosely administrated by necessity.
>
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 4 November 2013 14:31, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> That's true in the _general_ case, and therefore the ability to have
>> off-line updates is a good _general_ default. We should be able to do
>> _much_ better for many common cases (at the
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 14:48 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> I like what ChromeOS
> does where it has a rescue-ish partition, to do the upgrade, but
> without something like btrfs that can switch roots on a running
> filesystem that's basically impossible on Linux.
This is precisely what https://wik
On 4 November 2013 14:31, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> That's true in the _general_ case, and therefore the ability to have
> off-line updates is a good _general_ default. We should be able to do
> _much_ better for many common cases (at the very least, a package that
> only has one executable, or one
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 2 November 2013 17:47, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> I'm not really excited about a lot of required rebooting, though -- I think
>> that might be worse than the disease. We should have most of the information
>> needed to determine if a reboot
On 4 November 2013 10:24, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> If you're not using libxml2, you should be.
I'm using GMarkup.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Le lundi 04 novembre 2013 à 12:04 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
> > instead going the easy windows-way and say "ok, you have to reboot"
> > it would be more worth to optimize the handling *after* updates
> > without reboot and let the user decie wichi services are needed
> > to restart
>
> Not
Am 04.11.2013 12:49, schrieb Florian Weimer:
> On 11/02/2013 09:27 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> instead going the easy windows-way and say "ok, you have to reboot"
>
> I don't think this is a technically accurate characterization of the Windows
> update mechanism. Windows even allows
> updat
On 11/02/2013 09:27 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
instead going the easy windows-way and say "ok, you have to reboot"
I don't think this is a technically accurate characterization of the
Windows update mechanism. Windows even allows updating processes
through in-memory patching and compiles most
Le Sam 2 novembre 2013 21:02, Richard Hughes a écrit :
> It's also impossible to do in a
> race-free way on a multiuser system. Quite frankly, I'm surprised
> online updates works as much as it does.
It works as much as it does because people have made it work for years
instead of giving up like
- Original Message -
> On 1 November 2013 19:27, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> > Cleaned up the appdata xml
>
> Thanks,
>
> > https://github.com/timlau/yumex/blob/master/misc/yumex.appdata.xml
> > but I get errors from appdata-validate
> > Can see what the problem is :(
>
> You've got some
Hi,
On Sun, 03 Nov 2013 14:23:28 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Scherer wrote:
> > When statistics cost you money, yeah, I think that's important to
> > take them in account. Maybe your employer do not care about this,
> > but I strongly suspect mine does, and I strongly suspect that most
>
Le dimanche 03 novembre 2013 à 14:23 +0100, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
> Michael Scherer wrote:
> > When statistics cost you money, yeah, I think that's important to take
> > them in account. Maybe your employer do not care about this, but I
> > strongly suspect mine does, and I strongly suspect that m
Richard Hughes wrote:
> I'd agree with you if the majority of updates weren't either packaging
> tweaks or new upstream versions with little-to-no useful update text.
"Packaging tweak" updates are not that common. And the fact that the update
notes are useless doesn't necessarily mean the update
On 3 November 2013 13:31, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Fewer updates mean fewer bugfixes and thus more bugs!
I'd agree with you if the majority of updates weren't either packaging
tweaks or new upstream versions with little-to-no useful update text.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapro
Reindl Harald wrote:
> i am using updates-testing over years and often enough koji-packages too
> there are not much "barely" and problemtaic tested updates at all
> if someone wnats a system with less to zero updates he is using the
> wrong distribution and better suited with RHEL
+1, the frequen
Michael Scherer wrote:
> When statistics cost you money, yeah, I think that's important to take
> them in account. Maybe your employer do not care about this, but I
> strongly suspect mine does, and I strongly suspect that most companies
> do care about this as well.
Company computers should get u
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 18:38 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 06:21:34PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > > So, really, it's this related point that I'm concerned about now. We
> > > _need_
> > > to do these things in coordination, not just push a situation into F20
> > > wh
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 06:21:34PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > So, really, it's this related point that I'm concerned about now. We _need_
> > to do these things in coordination, not just push a situation into F20 where
> > we are telling our users to reboot everyday -- that's a pretty bad us
Am 02.11.2013 23:21, schrieb Matthias Clasen:
> Then change the way that updates to the released distribution are
> treated. As long as we don't constrain the constant stream of barely
> tested updates, we *are* pretty much forcing our users to restart their
> system frequently.
i am using updates
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 17:46 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> So, really, it's this related point that I'm concerned about now. We _need_
> to do these things in coordination, not just push a situation into F20 where
> we are telling our users to reboot everyday -- that's a pretty bad user
> experien
Le samedi 02 novembre 2013 à 22:35 +0100, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>
> Am 02.11.2013 22:29, schrieb Michael Scherer:
> > Ars technica summarize quite clearly the situation on this problem :
> > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/its-the-little-things-how-small-conundrums-make-man
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 08:02:51PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> update fails, you either get corrupted data and crashing application,
> or a hosed rpmdb. In a related point, we need to reduce the number of
> updates we present to the user in a massive way in a supposedly
> "stable" distro.
I thi
Dne 2.11.2013 22:13, Richard Hughes napsal(a):
On 2 November 2013 21:08, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
I thought applications shipping desktop files would be updated online,
and other packages would trigger offline updates. Has this plan changed?
Yes, everything requires an offline update now.
Ri
Am 02.11.2013 22:29, schrieb Michael Scherer:
> Ars technica summarize quite clearly the situation on this problem :
> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/11/its-the-little-things-how-small-conundrums-make-many-hate-computers/
>
> And I do not even speak of the users who reboot du
Le samedi 02 novembre 2013 à 21:40 +0100, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>
> Am 02.11.2013 21:35, schrieb Richard Hughes:
> > On 2 November 2013 20:27, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> "lsof | grep DEL | grep /usr" shows any opened but deleted file
> >> which is the case after updfates while applications are r
Am 02.11.2013 22:13, schrieb Richard Hughes:
> On 2 November 2013 21:08, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> I thought applications shipping desktop files would be updated online,
>> and other packages would trigger offline updates. Has this plan changed?
>
> Yes, everything requires an offline update
On 2 November 2013 21:08, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> I thought applications shipping desktop files would be updated online,
> and other packages would trigger offline updates. Has this plan changed?
Yes, everything requires an offline update now.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedor
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 20:35 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> Doesn't work with libreoffice, firefox or any application that loads
> plugins or modules.
I thought applications shipping desktop files would be updated online,
and other packages would trigger offline updates. Has this plan changed?
sig
Am 02.11.2013 21:35, schrieb Richard Hughes:
> On 2 November 2013 20:27, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> "lsof | grep DEL | grep /usr" shows any opened but deleted file
>> which is the case after updfates while applications are running
>
> Doesn't work with libreoffice, firefox or any application that
On 2 November 2013 20:27, Reindl Harald wrote:
> "lsof | grep DEL | grep /usr" shows any opened but deleted file
> which is the case after updfates while applications are running
Doesn't work with libreoffice, firefox or any application that loads
plugins or modules.
> hence that is what i use o
Am 02.11.2013 21:02, schrieb Richard Hughes:
> On 2 November 2013 17:47, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> I'm not really excited about a lot of required rebooting, though -- I think
>> that might be worse than the disease. We should have most of the information
>> needed to determine if a reboot is real
On 2 November 2013 17:47, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I'm not really excited about a lot of required rebooting, though -- I think
> that might be worse than the disease. We should have most of the information
> needed to determine if a reboot is really necessary, shouldn't we? I hope we
> can move to
Hi
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Richard Hughes wrote:
> > Not update, we do all updates offline now.
>
> Ewww! Yuck!
>
Can you stop with these childish responses? As a KDE contributor, it is
understandable if you don't agree with GNOME decisions but you don't have
to
On Sat, Nov 02, 2013 at 01:34:40PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> The logic I recently implemented for gnome-software 3.12 in F21 is to
> check for new updates once per day, and download updates when they are
> important (e.g. security updates), or when it has been a week since the
> last time we
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 18:33 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 11:01 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > Sure. GNOME is a complete desktop, not a collection of packages
> > designed to be replaced.
> Personally, I see little benefit in prohibiting users from removing core
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 18:22 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 02.11.2013 18:16, schrieb Michael Catanzaro:
> > The other change I want is for PackageKit to download updates weekly by
> > default. Currently updates come daily, but daily offline updates would
> > be completely absurd. All we have to d
Am 02.11.2013 18:16, schrieb Michael Catanzaro:
> The other change I want is for PackageKit to download updates weekly by
> default. Currently updates come daily, but daily offline updates would
> be completely absurd. All we have to do to support this is to change the
> default value of one gsett
On Sat, 2013-11-02 at 12:05 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Richard, who is "we" in this context? And what is "offline"?
we = GNOME, via systemd
offline = "Install Updates & Restart" [1]. Your computer shuts down,
installs updates, shuts down again, and then boots back to GDM. This has
been around
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 03:35:18PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > right-click->update in the app menu list, and other fun stuff like that?
> Not update, we do all updates offline now.
Richard, who is "we" in this context? And what is "offline"?
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect
Richard Hughes wrote:
> Not update, we do all updates offline now.
Ewww! Yuck!
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Ray Strode wrote:
> Small errors here:
>
>Control want package repositories there is enabled for current
> session
>
> maybe should be:
>
>Control what package repositories are enabled for the current
> session
>
Thanks, fixed upstream
Tim
--
devel maili
On 02.11.2013 00:33, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 11:01 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
Sure. GNOME is a complete desktop, not a collection of packages
designed to be replaced.
Personally, I see little benefit in prohibiting users from removing core
apps. If they don't like a p
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 11:01 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> Sure. GNOME is a complete desktop, not a collection of packages
> designed to be replaced.
Personally, I see little benefit in prohibiting users from removing core
apps. If they don't like a particular program, why force it on them?
Many p
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> Cleaned up the appdata xml
>
> https://github.com/timlau/yumex/blob/master/misc/yumex.appdata.xml
Small errors here:
Control want package repositories there is enabled for current
session
maybe should be:
Control what package re
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 8:30 PM, drago01 wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Tim Lauridsen
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Matthias Clasen
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Great, thanks for doing that.
>> >>
>> >> N
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 8:38 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> You've got some odd non-utf8 char as the very first byte in the file:
>
>
Looks like the editor has written an Unicode BOM, after removing that it
validates ok
Tim
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedorap
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 8:30 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Tim Lauridsen
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Matthias Clasen
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Great, thanks for doing that.
> >>
> >> Noticed while quickly looking over the file:
> >>
> >> - it is not valid xml
On 1 November 2013 19:27, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> Cleaned up the appdata xml
Thanks,
> https://github.com/timlau/yumex/blob/master/misc/yumex.appdata.xml
> but I get errors from appdata-validate
> Can see what the problem is :(
You've got some odd non-utf8 char as the very first byte in the fil
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>>
>> Great, thanks for doing that.
>>
>> Noticed while quickly looking over the file:
>>
>> - it is not valid xml: & needs to be escaped as &
>>
>> - 'gui' is not a great term to use.
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> Great, thanks for doing that.
>
> Noticed while quickly looking over the file:
>
> - it is not valid xml: & needs to be escaped as &
>
> - 'gui' is not a great term to use. I'd suggest rewording the first
> sentence maybe as 'Yum extender i
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 03:29:02PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> For those less brave, I've uploaded a screenshot here:
> http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/gnome-software-shell-search.png
H -- that little shopping bag doesn't _quite_ say "available but not
installed" to me. I wond
On 1 November 2013 15:36, Ryan Lerch wrote:
> Or even kick off a removal of an application from the overview?
Sure, that's certainly possible, I'd just need some UI mockups to work
from. Note, core apps are not removable, so we'd have to have some
kind of API to ask if an app is removable before
On 1 November 2013 15:31, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> So if it has a session service, and a shell provider integration, does that
> mean we do overlays/highlighting on applications with updates pending in the
> shell
We don't do that at the moment, but we could add that as a feature in
[upstream] bu
On Fri 01 Nov 2013 11:31:37 EDT, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Richard Hughes (hughsi...@gmail.com) said:
On 1 November 2013 14:53, Matthew Miller wrote:
Okay, thanks. This is really cool good stuff. Guess it's time to update my
other laptop to Rawhide. :)
For those less brave, I've uploaded a scre
Richard Hughes (hughsi...@gmail.com) said:
> On 1 November 2013 14:53, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > Okay, thanks. This is really cool good stuff. Guess it's time to update my
> > other laptop to Rawhide. :)
>
> For those less brave, I've uploaded a screenshot here:
> http://people.freedesktop.org/~
On 1 November 2013 14:53, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Okay, thanks. This is really cool good stuff. Guess it's time to update my
> other laptop to Rawhide. :)
For those less brave, I've uploaded a screenshot here:
http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/temp/gnome-software-shell-search.png
Also, if
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 10:07:11AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > Adding this as a gnome shell search provider will make this *really* slick.
> > I see that's https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=707594, but I don't
> > see it on my F20 test box. Is this going to be in gnome 3.10 or is it
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 15:00 +0100, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Pete Travis
> wrote:
> Hmm... It sounds like yumex would be much more discoverable if
> it included an appdata file :)
>
> Done,
>
> https://github.com/timlau/yumex/blob/82198add9daabcfc
On 1 November 2013 14:00, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> https://github.com/timlau/yumex/blob/82198add9daabcfcabe9d8bb7a28ef3190e920d7/misc/yumex-appdata.xml
There are numerous problems with that file, and it's not going to be
used by the parser. If you read
http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/appda
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 10:05 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:58:19AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > Speaking purely for myself and my own usage, I think this distinction makes
> > plenty of sense. Except I don't even really want the old packagekit tools.
> > If I'm lookin
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 09:58:19AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Speaking purely for myself and my own usage, I think this distinction makes
> plenty of sense. Except I don't even really want the old packagekit tools.
> If I'm looking for something desktop-application-y, an "app store" seems
> lik
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 7:51 AM, Pete Travis wrote:
> Hmm... It sounds like yumex would be much more discoverable if it included
> an appdata file :)
Done,
https://github.com/timlau/yumex/blob/82198add9daabcfcabe9d8bb7a28ef3190e920d7/misc/yumex-appdata.xml
Tim
--
devel mailing list
devel@list
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 11:01:57AM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> We wanted to write an application that rocked for a certain set of
> users, rather than write a generic UI that wasn't really usable by
> anyone. Also, given that you can easily install the old packagekit
> package tools using the ap
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:14 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> We can't make everybody happy all the time, sure, but there must be
>> something that can be done.
>> * Add a release note describing how to get a GUI that shows all packages?
>> * Make sure
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>>
>> Packages are not interesting to desktop users, they
>> are just an implementation detail of how to get something done. e.g.
>> "Play my media file", "Open this document someone se
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> Also, given that you can easily install the old packagekit
>> package tools using the application installer, there's really no
>> reason to get upset at all.
>
> Yet people visibly _a
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> Packages are not interesting to desktop users, they
> are just an implementation detail of how to get something done. e.g.
> "Play my media file", "Open this document someone sent to me". Anyone
> wanting to do things like "install a mysql
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> Also, given that you can easily install the old packagekit
> package tools using the application installer, there's really no
> reason to get upset at all.
Yet people visibly _are_ upset in this thread, so there's something
wrong with that
On 1 November 2013 03:19, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Having as the only GUI package management application on your spin one that
> does not even offer all packages is very broken.
You forgot to type "in my opinion"...
>> We have a notion of 'core app' - for things that 'come with the OS'. We
>> don't
On 1 November 2013 06:51, Pete Travis wrote:
> Hmm... It sounds like yumex would be much more discoverable if it included
> an appdata file :)
Agreed. At the moment applications without an AppData file are shown
below applications with AppData in the search results. See
http://alt.fedoraproject.o
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 08:03 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Why would this be useful? Just to be "fashionable"?
No. If you haven't been following the design of gnome-software, the
intent is to make it easier for users to install applications that they
want, without having to dig up what package nam
On 11/01/2013 04:58 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 04:19 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Having as the only GUI package management application on your spin one
that
does not even offer all packages is very broken.
It isn't a *package* management application. It's an *application*
manag
On Oct 31, 2013 11:43 PM, "Tim Lauridsen" wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Ankur Sinha
wrote:
>>
>> It isn't a *package* management application. It's an *application*
>> management application, ie., it only handles packages that are desktop
>> applications (and therefore have desktop
On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Ankur Sinha wrote:
> It isn't a *package* management application. It's an *application*
> management application, ie., it only handles packages that are desktop
> applications (and therefore have desktop files associated with them).
>
> I'm guessing power users tha
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 04:19 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Having as the only GUI package management application on your spin one
> that
> does not even offer all packages is very broken.
It isn't a *package* management application. It's an *application*
management application, ie., it only handles
On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 14:31 +0100, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> I know Richard has pushed hard to get appdata for apps, but it do help
> the
> end user, if lot of apps in gnome-software dont have any descriptions.
>
>
> Look at System -> File Tools -> Caja-actions configuration tool
>
>
> How should
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> It is an application installer, first and foremost. Installing
> backgrounds/icons/themes is not a priority.
Having as the only GUI package management application on your spin one that
does not even offer all packages is very broken.
> We have a notion of 'core app' - fo
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 14:31 +0100, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
>> Look at System -> File Tools -> Caja-actions configuration tool
>
> Get the cinnamon guys to fork the nautilus appdata ? I'm sure it will
> only need minor adjustments... :-)
Caja is actually from MATE, Cinnamon
On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 14:31 +0100, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Matthias Clasen
> wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 12:13 +0100, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> > I have tested gnome-software to see the current state,
> compaired to
> > gpk
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 12:13 +0100, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> > I have tested gnome-software to see the current state, compaired to
> > gpk in F19, there is a lot stuff there cant be done.
> >
> >
> > 1. You cant install backgrounds / icons
>
On Thu, 2013-10-31 at 12:13 +0100, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> I have tested gnome-software to see the current state, compaired to
> gpk in F19, there is a lot stuff there cant be done.
>
>
> 1. You cant install backgrounds / icons
It is an application installer, first and foremost. Installing
backgr
I have tested gnome-software to see the current state, compaired to gpk in
F19, there is a lot stuff there cant be done.
1. You cant install backgrounds / icons
2. Not all application found in the menu, can be found under installed, you
can search for them and find them, but cant remove them (ex.
87 matches
Mail list logo
