On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 14:00, Sascha Silbe
sascha-ml-reply-to-201...@silbe.org wrote:
Excerpts from Tomeu Vizoso's message of Wed Aug 18 11:05:15 +0200 2010:
Sascha, what would take to have a modern GNOME stack on the Debian
systems you use?
As long as newer GNOME libraries won't break
Excerpts from Tomeu Vizoso's message of Wed Aug 18 11:05:15 +0200 2010:
Sascha, what would take to have a modern GNOME stack on the Debian
systems you use?
As long as newer GNOME libraries won't break existing applications,
somebody setting up a repository with updated GNOME packages would
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:48, Marco Pesenti Gritti ma...@marcopg.org wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
Also, note that sticking to the current dependencies won't allow us to
keep jhbuild lean because we'd have to build old stuff for distros
such
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 19:20, Sascha Silbe
sascha-ml-ui-sugar-de...@silbe.org wrote:
Excerpts from Daniel Drake's message of Fri Jun 18 16:08:34 + 2010:
Fair points, but these are all Debian's problems, in my opinion. It
falls into the We're innovating, can you keep up? camp.
No, they're
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:05, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 19:20, Sascha Silbe
sascha-ml-ui-sugar-de...@silbe.org wrote:
Excerpts from Daniel Drake's message of Fri Jun 18 16:08:34 + 2010:
Fair points, but these are all Debian's problems, in my opinion.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 21:53, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
On 18 June 2010 05:04, Tomeu Vizoso tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
It has been mentioned that by updating these dependencies, we'll have
to build
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 16:33, Tomeu Vizoso
tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 16:28, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 15:17, Peter Robinson
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 17:10, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
On 16 June 2010 04:27, Tomeu Vizoso tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
anybody has thoughts about the convenience (or not) of making Sugar
depend on the introspection stack in GNOME 3.0?
The biggest practical downside will be
On 18 June 2010 05:04, Tomeu Vizoso tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
It has been mentioned that by updating these dependencies, we'll have
to build some more modules in jhbuild for distros such as Debian which
won't have it for now in their current versions and that this will
raise
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
On 18 June 2010 05:04, Tomeu Vizoso tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
It has been mentioned that by updating these dependencies, we'll have
to build some more modules in jhbuild for distros such as Debian which
won't have
Excerpts from Daniel Drake's message of Fri Jun 18 14:29:39 + 2010:
If you wait for Debian you'll likely be waiting a long time.
Please note that we're talking about Sugar development (i.e. sugar-jhbuild) on
Debian unstable here, which is usually rather current. Native Debian packages
to go
On 18 June 2010 10:59, Sascha Silbe sascha-ml-ui-sugar-de...@silbe.org wrote:
My view: don't let it hold back. Make the change, hack jhbuild, and
put pressure on them to push the package updates.
If somebody else volunteers to maintain a sugar-jhbuild that replaces major
libraries shipped by
Excerpts from Daniel Drake's message of Fri Jun 18 16:08:34 + 2010:
Fair points, but these are all Debian's problems, in my opinion. It
falls into the We're innovating, can you keep up? camp.
No, they're my problem because I develop Sugar on Debian systems. Can you
afford to leave me
On 18 June 2010 12:20, Sascha Silbe sascha-ml-ui-sugar-de...@silbe.org
No, they're my problem because I develop Sugar on Debian systems. Can you
afford to leave me behind? Is it worth the advantage of being able to use
introspection (or whatever other bleeding edge technology that requires
The way I see it, activities can't really use PyGI until it's a sugar
dependency. The sooner it is available as a dependency on all relevant
platforms (debian being one of them), the sooner important things like
Browse can start using it.
So, how about making some packages for all relevant
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
On 18 June 2010 05:04, Tomeu Vizoso tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
It has been mentioned that by updating these dependencies, we'll have
to build some more modules in jhbuild for distros such as Debian which
won't have
Hi,
anybody has thoughts about the convenience (or not) of making Sugar
depend on the introspection stack in GNOME 3.0?
The biggest practical downside will be that Sugar 0.90 will only run
on next-cycle distros (Fedora 14, Ubuntu Maverick, etc) unless people
backport a lot of other packages (not
Excerpts from Tomeu Vizoso's message of Wed Jun 16 09:27:17 + 2010:
anybody has thoughts about the convenience (or not) of making Sugar
depend on the introspection stack in GNOME 3.0?
What are the required packages (including minimum version numbers)? How stable
are the APIs?
The upsides
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
anybody has thoughts about the convenience (or not) of making Sugar
depend on the introspection stack in GNOME 3.0?
The biggest practical downside will be that Sugar 0.90 will only run
on next-cycle
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 15:17, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
anybody has thoughts about the convenience (or
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 15:17, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
anybody has thoughts about the convenience (or not) of making Sugar
depend on the introspection stack in GNOME 3.0?
The biggest
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 16:28, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 15:17, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 16:28, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 15:17, Peter Robinson
+1
PyGI as a working dependency would make Browse work somewhat easier
and would assure Browse's future.
On 16 June 2010 10:27, Tomeu Vizoso tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
anybody has thoughts about the convenience (or not) of making Sugar
depend on the introspection stack in GNOME
I don't know about RH, but @ litl we're using all-introspected
bindings w/ a distro based on Ubuntu Hardy. So backporting
shouldn't be too painful, really.
(Of course, we're not using the python introspection, so you might
have other troubles there.)
+1 on introspection in general. Hopefully
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 16:59, C. Scott Ananian csc...@laptop.org wrote:
I don't know about RH, but @ litl we're using all-introspected
bindings w/ a distro based on Ubuntu Hardy. So backporting
shouldn't be too painful, really.
glib sounds to me like the most problematic dependency to
On 16 June 2010 04:27, Tomeu Vizoso tomeu.viz...@collabora.co.uk wrote:
anybody has thoughts about the convenience (or not) of making Sugar
depend on the introspection stack in GNOME 3.0?
The biggest practical downside will be that Sugar 0.90 will only run
on next-cycle distros (Fedora 14,
27 matches
Mail list logo
