This mail is not about CVSGnome, but to clear up some misunderstandings of what "GNOME" technically is. Blah blah my own opinions I could be wrong blah. On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 18:21, Andreas J. Guelzow wrote: > On Sun, 2003-12-28 at 02:44, Danilo Segan wrote: > > Hi Andreas, > > > > "Andreas J. Guelzow" <aguelzow taliesin ca> writes: > > > > > > The official gnome releases omit various pieces of gnome software all > > > the time so why shouldn't CVSGnome? > > > > > > > It's as simple as this: you're claiming to provide a full Gnome, > > I do not claim any such thing, in fact I have nothing to do with > CVSGnome nor do I know what a "full Gnome" is. Well, the foundation is allowed to define what software "GNOME" consists of. They currently delegate this responsibility, and the day-to-day running of the releases, to the release-team. So "Full GNOME" means the stuff in http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/desktop/ and in the release notes, because that's what we define it to be. And when a company says they "Use GNOME," that's what they're talking about because that's what GNOME, the software, _is_. 5th toe is not "part of GNOME." It's a (very useful) collection of high-quality software that uses the GNOME platform. > > yet > > you neglect one part which I consider important (and which I > > contributed to). > > So do the official releases. (The only reason we are deploying gnome are > gnome applications that are not part of the official gnome desktop > releases.) No, no, no. Software that links to GNOME libraries and uses the platform is not "part of GNOME," it's software using the GNOME platform. Where there is an application that is widely believed to be an essential part of the desktop experience, the maintainer can add it to GNOME, but this needs community approval which is codified by the release team adding it to the release. Of course, I'm not saying the official releases include all the software people find useful. But it includes all the software under the GNOME umbrella, and that we give a certain level of guarantee of ABI/API stability to, and so on. But if you're making a distribution that misses out some of the software that the release team (and therefore, indirectly, the foundation) has said _is_ GNOME, you're not distributing GNOME. As I understand it, this is what CVSGnome used to do. And when that was the case, it was a very good argument for not including it in the release notes that tell you how to get GNOME. Thanks, -- Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part