Re: gnome-terminal: FTBFS on kfreebsd & hurd archs
Please accept my apologies. Apparently my previous mail wasn't clear enough for
everyone. So please allow me to ellaborate: The text had a statement and some
questions. One can tell them appart because questions end with a '?' sign, and
statements don't. The questions are what I'd really like to know, whereas the
statement merely acts as an introduction.
This is not a question:
I find it very strange that a terminal application needs gnome-shell. There are
dozens of terminal applications, and so far they seem to manage without dragging
their own desktop environment of choice with them.
I don't expect an answer on this, and I'm not asking anyone to research this. I
could have researched it myself, but I don't have a special interest in the answer
per se, only about its implications (see below).
These are questions:
Which makes me wonder: Does gnome-terminal actually work without gnome-shell? Is
this setup properly tested and supported by upstream?
In other words, does upstream release procedure account for the possibility
that one might want to use gnome-terminal without gnome-shell, and do their
QA procedures ensure that the resulting package will be usable?
Unfortunately I cannot answer them myself, because I'm not familiar with GNOME
development procedures, nor with the implied commitments that come with them.
It would be very nice if the GNOME maintainers can cast some light on this.
Thanks in advance,
--
Robert Millan
Reply to: