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

Re: Gnome 2.22 sauf Nautilus?



Le 25 août 2008, Gaëtan PERRIER a écrit :
> Quelqu'un a-t-il une idée du pourquoi Nautilus est resté en version 2.20 alors que le reste de Gnome est en 2.22 ?

Deux câbles de fin juillet 2008 en parlent. Je cite :

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://lists.debian.org/debian-gtk-gnome/2008/07/msg00017.html

Vitezslav Kotrla répond à Josselin Mouette (27 Jul 2008) :

>> Le samedi 26 juillet 2008 à 11:21 +0200, Vitezslav Kotrla a écrit :
>> > As nautilus 2.22 is already even in testing, I'd suggest it is time
>> > to remove patch 02_nautilus_2.20.
>> 
>> Huh ?
>> 
>>   nautilus |   2.20.0-4 |       testing
>>   nautilus |   2.20.0-6 |      unstable
>>   nautilus | 2.22.5.1-1 |  experimental
>
> Oops, stupid me. I was having look at file-roller, which is 2.22.4-1 in
> testing and did some mental short circuit. Of course nautilus 2.22 is in
> experimental only, sorry for the confusion.
>
> (But maybe 02_nautilus_2.20 patch could be removed from file-roller in
> experimental?)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Et

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2008/07/msg00416.htm

> Josselin Mouette répond à Stefano Zacchiroli (22 Jul 2008) :
>> Given that the freeze is now on the doorstep, can I conclude that we
>> are
>> going to release with GNOME 2.22, with the exception of nautilus which
>> will be version 2.20? 
>
> Yes, despite nautilus 2.22 fixing a shitload of bugs, we felt that gvfs
> was not ready for a stable release
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Merci http://lists.debian.org/search.html !

Cordialement,

-- 
Stéphane Aulery                            Melius est parum cum justitia
<lkppo@free.fr>                        Quam multi fructus cum iniquitate
                                                             (Pr. XV, 8)


Reply to: