On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 14:00, Sascha Silbe
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 existing applications,
> somebod
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
su
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>> I think Sascha is right that a jhbuild which supports a GNOME 3.0
>> based Sugar on old distributions would be unmaintainable. It will be a
>> lot of effort and it will break most of the time anyway. We need to
>> move in the opposite direct
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:48, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tomeu Vizoso 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 as Fedora.
>
> I think Sascha
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Tomeu Vizoso 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 as Fedora.
I think Sascha is right that a jhbuild which supports a GNOME 3.0
based Sugar on ol
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:05, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 19:20, Sascha Silbe
> 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
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 19:20, Sascha Silbe
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 my problem because I deve
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 21:53, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
>> On 18 June 2010 05:04, Tomeu Vizoso 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
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On 18 June 2010 05:04, Tomeu Vizoso 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 a
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 20:13, Lucian Branescu
wrote:
> 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 i
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 platfor
On 18 June 2010 12:20, Sascha Silbe
> 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
> modifying major system librarie
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 be
On 18 June 2010 10:59, Sascha Silbe 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 the distro: go ahead!
> It wi
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 Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On 18 June 2010 05:04, Tomeu Vizoso 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 a
On 18 June 2010 05:04, Tomeu Vizoso 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 significantly the bar for contrib
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 17:10, Daniel Drake wrote:
> On 16 June 2010 04:27, Tomeu Vizoso 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
>> o
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 16:33, Tomeu Vizoso
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 16:28, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 15:17, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
wrote:
> Hi
On 16 June 2010 04:27, Tomeu Vizoso 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, Ubuntu Maverick, etc) unle
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 16:59, C. Scott Ananian 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 backport.
I think
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
+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 wrote:
> Hi,
>
> anybody has thoughts about the convenience (or not) of making Sugar
> depend on the introspection stack in GNOME 3.0?
>
> The biggest prac
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 16:28, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 15:17, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
wrote:
>
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 16:28, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 15:17, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
>>> wrote:
Hi,
anybody has thoughts about the convenience (or n
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 15:17, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
> 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 Suga
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Tomeu Vizoso
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 15:17, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> anybody has thoughts about the convenience (or not) of making Sugar
>>> depend on the introspection stack in GNO
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Tomeu Vizoso
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 distros (Fedora 14, Ubuntu
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 upsid
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
