Re: gnome2 and gnome3: strategy of coexisting

Thanks for the answer. So, does that mean we directly or indirectly
recommend to distromakers NOT to allow users to choose between gnome2
("real", not "(panel + nautilus)/gnome3") and gnome3 sessions? Does
that mean we recommend not to bother creating two sets of packages? Or
we are just neutral and do not care (and we do not help)?

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 10:23 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 22:16 +0100, Sergey Udaltsov wrote:
>> Hi folks
>> I am not sure if I missed that topic (apologies if I did).
>> Is there a strategy regarding co-existing of gnome2 and gnome3 on the
>> same system?
> Short answer is no, and we won't be doing it.
>> I will narrow my question a bit. Some components, like gnome-session,
>> gnome-settings-daemon etc for a moment are using same names as they
>> did in gnome2. Would it make sense resolve that collision by using
>> different names (most simple way - adding "3" add the end)? I am not
>> concerned about creating a bad practice here: gnome2 was evolving for
>> decade, and I hope gnome3 would be around for another decade (and who
>> knows - will gnome4 ever exist?;).
>> What do you think? Does my question make any sense at least?
> When people talk about "Classic GNOME" wrt GNOME 3, they mean the ported
> to GTK+ 3.x, updated to GSettings, parts of the GNOME 2.x experience.
> There are no plans to make gnome-settings-daemon, bits of the
> control-center, and whatever else core components of the desktop
> parallel installable.
> The libraries will be parallel installable so you can run your
> not-ported-yet applications, but core parts of the desktop won't be one
> of them.
> Cheers

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