* David Nusinow wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 09:23:58AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > * Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 07:42 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > > * David Nusinow wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > [1] xterm needs an update, and compiz should ship with 0.2 for example... > > > > > > > > compiz 0.2 needs metacity >= 2.15.21, which is very unlikely to go into etch > > > > according to the GNOME maintainers. I may take a look at the code to see how > > > > difficult it will be to patch it for the metacity that's going to go into > > > > etch. > > > > > > compiz could always be built without metacity theme support, couldn't > > > it? > > > > It probably can. While it's certainly not the optimal solution, I guess it's > > a good compromise for etch. > > Is the diff between what we have and 0.2 that big? Could we just backport > the interesting fixes that don't break this instead? I was planning to try and make 0.2 work with the metacity currently in unstable, but I have no idea how difficult it is going to be. As for backporting the fixes and releasing something pre-0.2 is not worth the trouble in my opinion. I will also try and build an experimental version against metacity 2.16 and see how much of a difference the theming support really makes. - Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature