The namespace issue was really never a major reason for the fork, and as
far as replacing it with fdo goes, most users are used to compiz-quinn
and will expect that. So either way we go there will be confusion, I
figure its just as well to leave things alone if there is no way to get
beryl in to e
Actually, replacing the current version of the compiz package with the
official 0.2 release is what I would really like to see! Beryl would be
a bonus, but honestly I don't really care about it, because I use
fdo.org version.
--
Packaging (Beryl AND Compiz packages)
https://launchpad.net/bugs/632
Would it not be a good idea to replace the compiz package in universe
with official compiz head 0.2 when released, to avoid alot of confusion
after edgy release, as a major reason for the fork was namespace issues?
--
Packaging (Beryl AND Compiz packages)
https://launchpad.net/bugs/63254
--
ubu
closing this because we are working to try to get beryl in edgy+1. I
personally see a good chance it will make it in edgy+1 but still too
early to tell.
** Changed in: compiz (Ubuntu)
Status: Unconfirmed => Rejected
--
Packaging (Beryl AND Compiz packages)
https://launchpad.net/bugs/63254
as an adendum to that, I would like to be pleasantly surprised. (I am
DBO btw)
--
Packaging (Beryl AND Compiz packages)
https://launchpad.net/bugs/63254
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
Greetings,
>From the #beryl-devel IRC list..
pschulz01, no, beryl will not make edgy
we are past the feature freeze
we will be lucky just to get the libwnck patches in
which I am working on right now
--
Packaging (Beryl AND Compiz packages)
https://launchpad.net/bugs/63254
--
ubuntu-bugs m
