Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
Sebastien Bacher [2011-10-13 15:45 +0200]: That would put us in a position where we can upload at least glib and gtk, then we need to figure what we do with GNOME 3.2 against 3.4. If we have an updated stack I would lean toward stay on 3.2 by default, then we can maybe update selected components and use the ppa for other things Sounds great to me. It served us rather well in natty, and we can certainly use the extra time for stabilization. I'd like to update the core libraries, though. By UDS I'll familiarize myself with udisks2/new gdu, and come with some risk/benefit assessment. Martin -- Martin Pitt| http://www.piware.de Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Developer (www.debian.org) -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Does Ubuntu upload personal information by default and without permission now?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 John Rowland Lenton wrote on 12/10/11 21:08: On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 13:36:29 -0400, Jeremy Bicha jbi...@ubuntu.com ... (Drifting offtopic, would it make sense for the Music Store to be part of Software Center?) No. Ubuntu Software Center doesn't have a Play button, a scrub bar, track listings, or many of the other things a music store would need. Banshee has those things already, so you don't even need to learn a different interface. I hope that magazines are soon sold in a dedicated e-reader application rather than in USC, for similar reasons. And it would be super-nifty if someone implemented a font manager containing its own store, because that could do a much better job of previewing fonts than USC does. I suspect that some people complaining would also object to the Apps lens showing Apps Available for Download even though no information is being sent to the web there, just because of the extra clutter. And it's especially annoying to show those downloadable apps to users who don't have admin privileges. what do you mean? apps available for download *are* shown. Yes, that's the problem. It's bad enough that they're shown at all, when they are nearly always irrelevant. Showing them to people who can't install them is even worse. - -- mpt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6XEecACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecpQEgCghhnWL1dN05Pp1v/59NK19kGJ eqsAoJbDuZC5hv/v3k2TXftuu0SHDiG7 =IEPX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: [Desktop12.04-Topic] GNOME Version for the LTS
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 12:45:12AM EST, Sebastien Bacher wrote: That would put us in a position where we can upload at least glib and gtk, then we need to figure what we do with GNOME 3.2 against 3.4. If we have an updated stack I would lean toward stay on 3.2 by default, then we can maybe update selected components and use the ppa for other things THis is good news. Newer GTK to me always means at least some accessibility fixes, and given my previous topic about accessibility for Precise, accessibility fixes from infrastructure package updates == win for me. I also plan to update at-spi2 to whatever is latest in GNOME, as fixes in this piece of infrastructure don't impact anything outside of accessibility consumers, i.e Orca, accerciser, etc. Luke -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
