Re: website

[Murray Cumming <murrayc murrayc com>]

On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 22:44, Ali Akcaagac wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-04-21 at 21:25 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > > > 2.3 Unter "Installation" sollen wir andere Distros erwaehnen.
> > > > cvsgnome und garnome sind nicht fuer Installation, sondern fuer
> > > > Testing.
> > > 
> > > Sowohl Cvsgnome als auch Garnome können ein stabiles Release
> > > kompilieren,
> > 
> > Nein, garnome ist uberhaupt nicht dafuer bedeutet. Es macht kein Sinn
> > software von Sourcen zu bauen wenn man es nicht selbst entwickelt oder
> > erwartet Problemen zu finden. Das ist der Policy von GNOME. Warum soll
> > GNOME.de anders sein.
> >  
> > > was in vielen Fällen auch sehr praktisch ist, da das neue GNOME dann
> > > außerhalb von irgendwelchen Verzeichnissen liegt, die sich die
> > > Distribution schon gesichert hat.
> 
> ...
> 
> > > schon ausprobieren möchten, wenn es brandneu ist, sind diese Skripte
> > > ein sehr akzeptabler Weg zum Testen und Benutzen der neuen
> > > GNOME-Version.
> > 
> > Nein, sind die nicht. Das macht Problemen und deswegen unzufriedenheit
> > fuer Benuzter. Und es bedeutet unnoetige zusatzliche Arbeitt fuer die
> > Entwickler und Bugsquad.
> 
> Why don't you go and cleanup on this page first ?
> 
> http://www.gnome.org/start/2.6/notes/rninstallation.html
> 
> If you bring up the point that GARNOME and CVSGNOME are no real solution
> to build GNOME and that new people might get a wrong impression then ok.
> I therefore like to ask you to remove GARNOME from that page as well.
> Otherwise it makes no sense telling the owner of GNOME.de to do so while
> the mainpage still keeps links to GARNOME.

That page says
"
We recommend that you use official installation packages, such as those
for your linux distribution. Vendors are likely to package GNOME 2.6
relatively quickly, and to release new versions soon that include GNOME
2.6. However, many people don't want to wait, and will want to build
GNOME from source code, even though that is more difficult."
(I wrote it)

Where is the inconsistency?


> Another point is that I recall that the policy of GNOME was to be
> distributed in source code form ? Why has it been changed ?

Who said that it had changed? But none of the developers advise that
users should _install_ it from source. Distros are the main people to
whom we distribute source code, I think.

>  GNOME is not
> being released in binary form only in source code form. Has this
> recently changed ? If not then why should the pointers to GARNOME or
> CVSGNOME get removed ?

Apart from that page, garnome and cvsgnome are only mentioned in
connection with _testing_.

>  These solutions are far easier for people getting
> used to rather than sticking with per package solution which they trap
> into problems far easier than by using a build system solution.

You believe that building from source is easier than using distro
packages?

-- 
Murray Cumming
www.murrayc.com
murrayc murrayc com