Re: Suggestion for GARNOME doc + 2.9.4

[Vincent Rubiolo <vincent rubiolo free fr>]

Hello guenther,

Thank you for your reply.

guenther wrote:
[...]
> They did not rename it to 'kar'? SCNR :)
Yes, I thought so too ;). Compilation went _very_ well with no errors 
whatsoever compared to the struggle I usually have to go through to get 
GARNOME running. I suppose it's because they rely more on their own 
tools (Qt, qmake, etc...) than on the existing software (as GARNOME 
does) hence have less compatibility problems.
[...]
> Anyway, IMHO additional information regarding gar are a pretty good
> idea. :)  
Yes, I think so, especially because I realized very late there was no 
official site except the one of lnx-bbc (that is GAR main usage).

Although personally I would prefer a separate file (README.gar
> maybe?) to not bloat the actual README. Additional, verbose details are
> a great thing if you already got going, but it likely will scare a lot
> of folks trying to build GARNOME the first time.
I was asking about the last patch because I would really see the README 
updated. The docs on the site and the help are really different. We 
should move towards unification.

[...]
> Nope, GARNOME 2.9.4 isn't released yet. The arch repository already
> incorporates some (most?) of the GNOME 2.9.4 releases, though.
Ok, I think I am going to go arch very soon, as I keep on hearing very 
good things about it :)
[...]
> If you are subscribed to this list, you will be noticed about GARNOME
> releases by Paul, as soon as they are out (as tarball).
Yes, I am subscribed. I understand the question may have been too early 
as I'm sure the release in underway.
I was wondering about it because I cannot even compile 2.9.3; I then 
wanted to know whether it was better to wait for 2.9.4. I think I will 
do so.

Vincent

--
Reclaim Your Inbox!
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird