Re: I'm starting GNOME 2.10 backport to Debian Sarge. Who wanna help me?
On Tue, 2005-08-30 at 23:44 +0200, Jerome Warnier wrote:
> Le mardi 30 août 2005 à 19:36 +0300, Mantas Kriaučiūnas a écrit :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Debian Sarge was released ~3 months ago with GNOME 2.8, while GNOME 2.10
> > was released about 6 months ago! Lots of Debian users, who use stable
> > system wanna try GNOME 2.10, but AFAIK there are no GNOME 2.10 backport
> > for Debian Sarge. I'm main developer of custom Debian distribution for
> > Lithuania - Baltix and I noticed, that Baltix users wants to see GNOME
> > 2.10 as desktop environment, so I wanna make GNOME 2.10 backport for
> > Debian Sarge (currently Baltix is based on stable version of Debian).
> >
> > Maybe some debian developers or users wanna help me ? It would be nice do
> > not duplicate the work, so if someone knows someone, who backported GNOME
> > 2.10 libraries and applications to Debian sarge, then please write a
> > letter to me or talk with me with Jabber/XMMP.
> >
> > Btw, I noticed, that there are no backports for Debian 3.1 (sarge) on
> > www.backports.org, maybe backports.org team wanna help me to make GNOME
> > 2.10 backport (or maybe I can help them ? ;) )
> In my understanding, backports.org is not a monolithic organisation,
> it's "just" a repository of packages from different people having
> nothing in common.
>
> Maybe you should try to contact and convince James Strandboge[1], which
> historically provided the GNOME 2.2 backports for Woody? Maybe he is
> even subscribed to this list and will read your mail.
>
Thanks for the plug. I don't think I will be undertaking a gnome 2.10
backport, as I am committed to maintaining the 2.2 backport until woody
is end-of-lifed. However, I may be able to help someone who is
interested in providing a gnome backport. Personally, I wouldn't bother
with 2.10, I'd wait for 2.12 to hit sid, then backport. That doesn't
mean I wouldn't be interested in helping though. :)
> [1] jstrand1 at rochester.rr.com
This email is no longer valid.
Jamie Strandboge
Reply to: