[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [ANN] Gnome 1.4 debs available



Just to say that Nautilus packages are now apt-able correctly.

Cheers


Bastien Nocera wrote:
> 
> Adam C Powell IV wrote:
> >
> > Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > http://hadess.net/idoru.shtml for all the info
> > >
> > > No Fifth Toe applications available yet, old applications should work
> > > alright, maybe a symlink here and there for the libraries.
> > > I'll add them as I build them, after GUADEC.
> >
> > These are the Ximian .debs?  If so, they're binary incompatible with official
> > GNOME .debs, and Ximian is no longer supporting sid: "unstable is changing a bit
> > too fast underneath us."  So I guess those .debs are for stable?
> 
> Nope, for testing... Means that we won't get stuff like Nautilus 1.0.1
> (which is part GNOME 1.4, and works on PPC) until more than 2 weeks.
> Nautilus 1.0 from unstable is broken on PPC.
> 
> > See http://kt.zork.net/debian/dd20010328_28.html#5
> >
> > IMHO, the Ximian .debs play an important role for some stable users (except for
> > the upgrade headache because of their version numbers), and may have been
> > helpful for 1.2 releases a few months ago.  But now that Christian and Takuo
> > etc. have caught up (and we even have a pretty complete set for PPC), it seems
> > that for unstable users there is not such a strong reason to use them, and in
> > addition to duplicating packaging effort, they split bug reports so nobody has a
> > complete set.
> 
> Sure... But there are people that want the stuff _now_. I wanted to test
> Nautilus and Evolution more for example before going to GUADEC. I offer
> them as a gift to the Debian/PPC users, and try to do my best to keep
> them up-to-date and working. If you don't like them, and don't mind
> waiting ages to get already obsolete packages, that's your problem.
> 
> BTW, the packages are mostly based off Debian packages updated to the
> latest sources (uupdate is my friend).

-- 
/Bastien Nocera
http://hadess.net



Reply to: