On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 02:23 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> So, just so I understand, the requirement/assumption is that all
> machines will be online and pulling bits down directly from GNOME? That
> won't map at all to enterprise or non-fully connected environments. It
> needs to be possible to inst
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 02:23 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> David: on the subject of your followup...my advice, by the way, is that
> life is too short to continue to try to explain why GNOME Shell is
> unusable for folks like you and I. I'd just switch to XFCE and be done
> with it. My machines are a
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 10:57 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be
> like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click
> "install" to install an extension.
> Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
So, just so I
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 06:28, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 11:15 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> >> Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
>> >
>> > [citation needed]
>>
>> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-June/msg00164.html
>
> Seriously, who cares?
On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 11:15 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> >> Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
> >
> > [citation needed]
>
> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-June/msg00164.html
Seriously, who cares? Upstream are clearly on crack these days anyway.
The best way
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:36:50 +0200
Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> I would strongly prefer third parties not to reinvent whole
> packaging and repositories concept. Some companies grasp it (I have
> yum repos provided for Google Earth and Talk Plugin, Dell BIOSes and
> firmwares, Adobe Flash and Air, Vir
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:31:35AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> 2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> > On 07/29/2011 09:21 AM, drago01 wrote:
> >> 2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
> >>> On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
> Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be
>
2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> On 07/29/2011 09:21 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> 2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
>>> On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be
like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and c
On 07/29/2011 09:21 AM, drago01 wrote:
> 2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
>> On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>> Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be
>>> like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click
>>> "install" to install an extension
2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be
>> like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click
>> "install" to install an extension.
>> Distro packaged extensions are frowned
On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
> Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be
> like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click
> "install" to install an extension.
> Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
Is it not then better to s
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:57:59 +0200
> drago01 wrote:
> ...
>
>> Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
>
> [citation needed]
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-June/msg00164.html
--
devel mailing list
Hi,
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:57:59 +0200
drago01 wrote:
...
> Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
[citation needed]
--Stijn
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/29/2011 09:47 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 10:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the
>>> gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've th
On 07/29/2011 01:57 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> There does exit an [1] rpm and an srpm [2] here by the do we have
> guidelines on how to package additional extensions I guess official and
> unofficial ones?
The only one we have is at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidel
Hi,
On 07/29/2011 09:47 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 10:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the
>> gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've the
>> same plans or are already working on this, please let me kn
On 07/29/2011 07:47 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 10:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the
>> gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've the
>> same plans or are already working on this, please let me know.
>
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 10:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the
> gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've the
> same plans or are already working on this, please let me know.
> So we can avoid doing double work.
Did you do thi
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Ron Yorston wrote:
> > I'd prefer them to be in one package: they are intended to work
> > together.
>
> Except the Shut Down menu extension directly conflicts with the
> alternative-status-menu extension. Sub-packages are the safest be
Ron Yorston wrote:
> I'd prefer them to be in one package: they are intended to work
> together.
Except the Shut Down menu extension directly conflicts with the
alternative-status-menu extension. Sub-packages are the safest bet.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fe
Hi Ron,
Am 01.06.2011 11:19, schrieb Ron Yorston:
> Hans de Goede wrote:
>> I plan to use 1 subpackage per extension of the frippery
>> extension collection, so that people can install only those
>> which they want without automatically getting all of
>> them.
>
> I'd prefer them to be in one pack
Hans de Goede wrote:
>I plan to use 1 subpackage per extension of the frippery
>extension collection, so that people can install only those
>which they want without automatically getting all of
>them.
I'd prefer them to be in one package: they are intended to work
together.
I understand that mana
Hi all,
Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the
gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've the
same plans or are already working on this, please let me know.
So we can avoid doing double work.
I plan to use 1 subpackage per extension of the frippery
extension col
23 matches
Mail list logo
