2.27 Release Notes - Call for items

_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list <at> gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: 2.27 Release Notes - Call for items

_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list <at> gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

live.gnome.org contents license

Hello,

sorry if this is a bit off topic but I think this is a major question
that affects at the whole Gnome project.

I think that would be good set a license by default to the
live.gnome.org content.
So, this should do more easy and clear share the contents of the wiki.
(If you don't specify any license, you have all the rigths of the
content)

I think CC-by-sa 3.0 would be a good choice, because it has already
been choosen by our doc team for new documentation. (and by important
sites, like wikipedia)

Best regards,
--

-- 
Javier Jardón Cabezas
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list <at> gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: live.gnome.org contents license

On 8/4/09, Javier Jardón <javierjc1982 <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>  sorry if this is a bit off topic but I think this is a major question
>  that affects at the whole Gnome project.
>
>  I think that would be good set a license by default to the
>  live.gnome.org content.
>  So, this should do more easy and clear share the contents of the wiki.
>  (If you don't specify any license, you have all the rigths of the
>  content)

You're right, it is off topic. gnome-web-list would probably be more
appropriate,

Christian

Re: 2.27 Release Notes - Call for items

Paul Cutler a écrit :
> Hello developers!  It's time to start working on the release notes for the
> upcoming GNOME 2.27 / 2.28 release.
> 
> Please add your notes to this page for changes to applications in GNOME
> 2.28:  http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven/ReleaseNotes
> 

Hi,

Is there a dead-line to add stuff?

Best regards,
Yannick

GConf schemas in deprecated libraries

Hi,

I've reported bug 590774[1] against gnome-terminal. The problem is that it reads
some defaults (monospace font) from GConf, but that schema is provided by
libgnome. Since we're trying to get rid of libgnome (g-t got rid of it in 2.26),
shouldn't the schemas be moved to another place, so that we can at some point
get rid of libgnome completely?

Cheers,
Emilio

[1] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=590774

_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list <at> gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

Re: GConf schemas in deprecated libraries

On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 23:15 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've reported bug 590774[1] against gnome-terminal. The problem is that it reads
> some defaults (monospace font) from GConf, but that schema is provided by
> libgnome. Since we're trying to get rid of libgnome (g-t got rid of it in 2.26),
> shouldn't the schemas be moved to another place, so that we can at some point
> get rid of libgnome completely?

That sort of schemas would probably end up in either
gnome-settings-daemon I would think...

Re: GConf schemas in deprecated libraries

On 08/04/2009 06:16 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 23:15 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've reported bug 590774[1] against gnome-terminal. The problem is that it reads
>> some defaults (monospace font) from GConf, but that schema is provided by
>> libgnome. Since we're trying to get rid of libgnome (g-t got rid of it in 2.26),
>> shouldn't the schemas be moved to another place, so that we can at some point
>> get rid of libgnome completely?
> 
> That sort of schemas would probably end up in either
> gnome-settings-daemon I would think...

But gnome-terminal doesn't depend on gnome-settings-daemon either...

The network proxy settings are in the same boat; they are currently
owned by gnome-vfs.

-- Dan

Re: GNOME Menus restructuring

My feeble brain is unable to grasp the distinction between "Personal"
and "Look and Feel"

On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 12:53 -0400, Ken VanDine wrote:
> I am looking for opinions for a potential change in gnome-menus.  The
> default menus can get pretty long, and isn't fun to scroll through on
> a small display.  I have created a patch for gnome-menus that
> re-organizes the preferences menus to match the categories gnome-cc
> uses.  I think this makes it much easier to find what you are looking
> for, less painful on smaller screens, and more visually appealing.
> 
> Screenshots of the resulting menus
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenvandine/tags/337428/
> 
> Bug #
> http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=337428
> 
> My branch
> git://github.com/kenvandine/gnome-menus.git
> 
> I have it built into a ppa for those that are running Ubuntu
> https://edge.launchpad.net/~ken-vandine/+archive/gnomex
> 
> Thanks,
> --Ken
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list <at> gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list

What version of clutter should be used in 2.27/2.28?

The 2.27 external dependencies page still lists clutter 0.8.x as the
supported version of clutter to be used with GNOME.

   http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointTwentyseven/ExternalDependencies

However, clutter 1.0 and clutter-foo 0.10 have recently been released.
Will the dependencies page be updated to the new versions, or are the
0.8 versions still recommended for GNOME 2.27/2.28?

If so...

I know that gobject-introspection is an optional dependency of clutter
1.0, so will gobject-introspection also be added as a dependency?  Since
GNOME 2.28 was called a "GNOME 3.0 beta" at GUADEC and since GNOME shell
requires that clutter be built with gobject-introspection, I wonder
whether the GNOME community recommends that distros build clutter 1.0
with gobject-introspection or not.

Thanks,

Brian