Re: expanding the Linux System definition with OIN

On Sun, June 3, 2012 3:31 am, Frederic Peters wrote:
> Hi Karen,
>> I asked him for guidance so that we weren't nominating packages that
>> were too far afield and he said: these should be pretty conservative and
>> either kernel related and threaded thereto
>> The packages currently included, with their version numbers, are here:
>> and here:
>> Do any of you have any suggestions? I'd ordinarily love to coordinate
>> with
>> KDE and others, but with such a tight turn around, we'll have to try
>> that
>> next time...
> I looked at those tables and the second one (compiled as of May 2012)
> lists pretty much all of GNOME modules, in their 3.2 versions. If
> we're supposed to be conservative and decide to stay at 3.2, we should
> simply ask for the inclusion of missing modules (because it looks like
> version numbers were updated, but at its basis it's still mostly
> modules that composed GNOME 2, e.g. gnome-shell is missing).
> Do you think this makes sense? In that case it would be easy to
> provide a table with module name, version number, download URL.


That makes a lot of sense, thanks! I'll email Keith and cc you - hopefully
we'll have enough time to put this together before they meet (sorry I
checked my email this morning but didn't see this or would have responded


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