On 29/05/2012 16:13, [email protected] wrote: > I tried to install that PPA a few weeks ago, and I ended up having to
That is the only way to get Shell 3.4 in Trisquel unless you compile it yourself. If Ubuntu backports it then we might get it, otherwise you'll be stuck with 3.2 until Trisquel 6.0 gets released. Alternatively, you can use Parabola GNU/Linux (https://parabolagnulinux.org/) which does have Shell 3.4.1 but it's a whole different distro and might not be worth the effort just for the latest Shell. > reinstall the entire system. I'm not having any application issues, I > just want the latest and greatest, and want GNOME Shell to run smoother, > and have the improved extension management. As far as "latest and greatest" go, 3.4 did introduce some extra functionality for extensions, like allowing a configuration GUI per extension. Some extensions also only work with 3.4, like Shellshape. But unless you need something drastically important that only works with 3.4 I would suggest you stick it out with 3.2 for a few more months. I am not aware of anything else that makes Shell 3.4 necessarily faster/better, at least not for the way I used it. > Also, are extensions on the GNOME Shell website free software? If they > don't have such requirements, that does not look good from a GNU Project > and FSF maintained project. > I still have not seen an official message stating this explicitly to the users, but when you attempt to upload an extension you have to agree to the following: "I verify that my extension can be distributed under the terms of the GPLv2+" If you refuse to agree to that it says: "You must be able to distribute your extension under the terms of the GPLv2+." I assume that agreement comes from this discussion: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2012-January/msg00005.html Basically, you can multi-license but everything needs to be GPLv2+ at least. -- Morne Alberts
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
