Re: GNOME 1.4.1 beta2
- From: Kjartan Maraas <kmaraas online no>
- To: veillard redhat com
- Cc: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, GNOME Hackers <gnome-hackers gnome org>, gnome-packaging-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: GNOME 1.4.1 beta2
- Date: 05 Sep 2001 14:29:19 +0200
Den ons, 2001-09-05 kl. 13:47 skrev Daniel Veillard:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 07:59:14AM +0200, Kjartan Maraas wrote:
> > Den ons, 2001-09-05 kl. 04:58 skrev Havoc Pennington:
> > >
> > > Kjartan Maraas <kmaraas online no> writes:
> > > > I'd really like to see a new gnome-core released for this beta and the
> > > > same goes for gnome-utils. If there are other packages that should be
> > > > updated please give me a heads up.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you think we could get new releases for libraries with their header
> > > files moved to avoid conflicts with GNOME 2?
> > >
> > Yes. This would be a great oportunity to do this.
> > > This would affect probably gnome-libs, ORBit, etc. GConf should
> > > already be done. I think eel is done. gtk and deps are done. James
> > > just said on IRC he's going to do libglade. I don't know about most of
> > > the others.
> > >
> > Anyone else?
> This should not afect libxml1 since it uses $prefix/include/gnome-xml
> while libxml2 uses $prefix/include/libxml
> Now I may get convinced to try to "fix" libxml2 if I get instructions
> about it and a clear picture on how it really solve the problem. Let's
> say I'm nearly convinced this is needed but I want to read written
> description of the suggested change to implement it.
> In that case I would release libxml2-2.4.4 before GNOME 1.4.1 beta2
> (you're shipping libxml2 right ?).
No. Should I?
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
] [Thread Prev