Re: GNOME 2.26 module inclusion discussion heats up

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:46 AM, Lennart Poettering <mztabzr 0pointer de> wrote:
> Oh, is that so?
> This is some old Topaz mockup:

Your attitude is making it really hard to take sides with PA. Yes,
it's *the* only way forward at the moment. But you don't need to be a
dick about it. Why are you (and your supporters) resisting a fall back
mode so strongly?

BTW, I updated the proposal pages some time ago to indicate that PA is
essentially being proposed as a dependency as a result of this thread.
What about your attitude toward hardware compatibility lends to the
argument that we *should* depend on PA at this point?

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]