Re: GNOME 2.0 Desktop 'Alpha' Release
- From: Jonathan Blandford <jrb redhat com>
- To: jacob berkman <jacob ximian com>
- Cc: Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc linuxweasel com>, "Matthew J. Doller" <mdoller wpi edu>, GNOME Desktop Hackers <desktop-devel-list gnome org>, GNOME Hackers <gnome-hackers gnome org>
- Subject: Re: GNOME 2.0 Desktop 'Alpha' Release
- Date: 11 Jan 2002 14:54:52 -0500
jacob berkman <jacob ximian com> writes:
> On Fri, 2002-01-11 at 12:29, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
> > Gregory Leblanc <gleblanc linuxweasel com> writes:
> > > On Thu, 2002-01-10 at 09:02, Matthew J. Doller wrote:
> > > > > And alpha isn't just for developers either. It is definately for everybody
> > > > > to download (we are going to get binary packages as promised, right?) and
> > > > > give it a test.
> > > >
> > > > if binary rpms are made available, would it be possible to have them be
> > > > relocatable? if i'm going to install an alpha of gnome2, i'd like it to
> > > > go into /opt, or /opt/gnome2
> > >
> > > Well, theoretically, the RPMS are relocatable. However, since there are
> > > current docs on relocating RPMs, these aren't tested. If you want to
> > > test this feel free, and let me know where things break, and I'll see
> > > what I can fix.
> > > Greg
> > Unfortunately, we compile the location a program is installed into in
> > libgnome, meaning that RPM is unrelocatable, even if the files are.
> i umm thought this was supposed to be fixed in gnome 2.
What was changed is that you no longer have to install applications in
the same prefix as GNOME. Things like where libgnome looks for help
files or stock images is compiled in.
] [Thread Prev