since i cant find anything new on this topic. im gonna ask . when is 3.12 gonna be pushed to the Fedora repo's? or is it still in Discussion? if it is can someone point me to where i can follow the conversation about this please.
thankyou
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 05/02/2014 12:14 AM, Greg wrote:
since i cant find anything new on this topic. im gonna ask . when is 3.12 gonna be pushed to the Fedora repo's? or is it still in Discussion? if it is can someone point me to where i can follow the conversation about this please.
thankyou
You can run GNOME 3.12 on Fedora 20 today by using a COPR repository. Read http://fedoramagazine.org/running-gnome-3-12-on-fedora-20/ for full details.
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 02:14:57PM +1000, Greg wrote:
since i cant find anything new on this topic. im gonna ask . when is 3.12 gonna be pushed to the Fedora repo's? or is it still in Discussion? if it is can someone point me to where i can follow the conversation about this please.
It's still pending discussion, but there hasn't been much of that following the initial flurry.
It might be useful to collect possible blockers:
1. Extension compatibility -- no one answered my question about the accuracy of the popularity sort at https://extensions.gnome.org/. It looks like most of the most popular extensions _are_ updated, and maybe a concentrated effort could be made on, say, the top 20 that aren't yet.
2. Extension upgrades -- if we can install and activate drago01's extension which notifies users of out-of-date extensions, users will still get broken extensions after the upgrade but will at least get a notification explaining what to do.
3. The UI change overall -- yes, this would be an exception to policy. But, sheesh, have you seen the Firefox 29 changes that just went live? That has a much bigger impact on my practical UI than any GNOME 3.10 -> 3.12 changes.
4. Possible regression bugs not yet resolved?
5. Possible problems with new versions affecting other desktops?
6. Other?
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.orgwrote:
It's still pending discussion, but there hasn't been much of that following the initial flurry.
I think that considering the blockers and the effort of pushing such
update, and that the COPR works really well, we should probably not push it as a regular update.
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Elad Alfassa elad@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
It's still pending discussion, but there hasn't been much of that following the initial flurry.
I think that considering the blockers and the effort of pushing such update, and that the COPR works really well, we should probably not push it as a regular update.
No it does not work "really well" it lacks proper multilib support and has to duplicate nay package that depends on anything it includes. It is nice as a preview to get some feedback but it cannot replace a regular update.
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM, drago01 drago01@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Elad Alfassa elad@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
It's still pending discussion, but there hasn't been much of that following the initial flurry.
I think that considering the blockers and the effort of pushing such
update,
and that the COPR works really well, we should probably not push it as a regular update.
No it does not work "really well" it lacks proper multilib support and has to duplicate nay package that depends on anything it includes. It is nice as a preview to get some feedback but it cannot replace a regular update. -- desktop mailing list desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
If you install both the i686 and the x86_64 like the COPR page says you should, it works well for multilib. I'm using it daily for my work laptop.
On 2 May 2014 14:08, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
- Possible problems with new versions affecting other desktops?
This. KDE, LXDE and MATE all require old versions of upower.
Richard.
On 2 May 2014 14:58, Michael Catanzaro mcatanzaro@gnome.org wrote:
Is this really a blocker? Can we identify which GNOME components depend on the newer upower and patch them to revert that change?
gnome-settings-daemon really requires the new upower, as does gnome-control-center, as the new upower API was written for those two components.
Richard
Richard Hughes wrote:
On 2 May 2014 14:08, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
- Possible problems with new versions affecting other desktops?
This. KDE, LXDE and MATE all require old versions of upower.
KDE should be fine with newer upower. The others, not sure if there's 100% support yet.
Last I checked the copr also included PackageKit-0.9, is that still the case?
-- Rex
On 2 May 2014 16:37, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
Last I checked the copr also included PackageKit-0.9, is that still the case?
Yes, but it would be pretty simple to bundle up the latest hawkey, libsolve etc and just use 0.8
Richard.
Richard Hughes wrote:
On 2 May 2014 16:37, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
Last I checked the copr also included PackageKit-0.9, is that still the case?
Yes, but it would be pretty simple to bundle up the latest hawkey, libsolve etc and just use 0.8
OK, is what is in f20 worth testing now? I vaguely recall the last time I'd tested apper against PK hawkey backend there were problems...
-- Rex
On 05/02/2014 03:29 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 2 May 2014 14:08, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
- Possible problems with new versions affecting other desktops?
This. KDE, LXDE and MATE all require old versions of upower.
In retrospect, I wonder if it would have made sense to make upower fully parallel installable, including renamed daemon binary and dbus interface name and everything else.
----- Original Message -----
On 05/02/2014 03:29 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 2 May 2014 14:08, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
- Possible problems with new versions affecting other desktops?
This. KDE, LXDE and MATE all require old versions of upower.
In retrospect, I wonder if it would have made sense to make upower fully parallel installable, including renamed daemon binary and dbus interface name and everything else.
I don't think you want two daemons poking at batteries and trying to suspend your machine running at the same time.
desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Bastien Nocera -
drago01 -
Elad Alfassa -
Greg -
Kalev Lember -
Matthew Miller -
Michael Catanzaro -
Rex Dieter -
Richard Hughes -
Stephen Gallagher