On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:22, Vadim Plessky wrote: > On Monday 10 March 2003 17:26, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote: > | Actually we have a half-GEPed policy now for GNOME version numbers. I > | think _almost_ everything in GNOME 2.2 is meant to have a 2.2.x version > | number. > | But stuff that isn't part of GNOME platform or desktop, such as Galeon, > | probably shouldn't bother with it. We don't need stuff calling itself > | version 2.2.0 just because it uses GNOME 2.2 libraries. > Certanly interesting... > - Why Galeon2 is not part of GNOME? Mozilla dependency comes to mind. Once GRE is ready enough, maybe that can be reconsidered. > - if it is not Galeon - what browser is part of GNOME? > I always thought of Galeon as part of GNOME/default GNOME browser. > Did I miss something?.. It's a thought. Not reality yet, but likely in the future. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part