Just confirmed (reported by a user) that there is no way to show IBus
tray icon in 12.10, GNOME Shell.
--
ubuntu-desktop mailing list
ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
My intuition is that Ubuntu should definitely maintain its own GNOME stack.
Since Unity is still largely based on GNOME technology but we may not
agree every decision of GNOME upstream.
And Debian's view point of GNOME upstream may different from us and
they don't maintain Unity at all.
But for th
On 17/10/12 18:02, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Robert Ancell [2012-10-17 10:48 +1300]:
>> - By updating packages in Debian and waiting for them to flow down to
>> Ubuntu kills our velocity. It can change the time from upstream release
>> to being in Ubuntu from hours (which is too long in my opinion) to d
On 17/10/12 18:25, Allison Randal wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 03:56 PM, Robert Ancell wrote:
>> My point is we *shouldn't* take the time to update Debian as it is all
>> cost and no benefit. If you think of Debian as being directly upstream
>> from Ubuntu it sounds good but in reality it is a more "side
Le 16/10/2012 23:24, Robert Ancell a écrit :
In conclusion I don't think we have anything to be worried about with
GNOME OS at this point and by the time it did matter we may be
sufficiently different anyway that it doesn't matter.
Seems like "GNOME OS" is managing to get any discussion off-track
Robert Ancell [2012-10-17 10:48 +1300]:
> - By updating packages in Debian and waiting for them to flow down to
> Ubuntu kills our velocity. It can change the time from upstream release
> to being in Ubuntu from hours (which is too long in my opinion) to days.
Yes, I agree that this is an issue at
Robert Ancell [2012-10-17 10:24 +1300]:
> - It's about standardising the stack from the kernel to the
> applications.
Right, that was mostly what I've heard about the idea as well.
> This is mostly a non-issue for Ubuntu as the stack that is being
> standardised on is pretty much what we have in
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Robert Ancell
wrote:
> My point is we *shouldn't* take the time to update Debian as it is all
> cost and no benefit. If you think of Debian as being directly upstream
> from Ubuntu it sounds good but in reality it is a more "sidestream". If
> it is outdated in Ubun
On 17/10/12 11:28, Ma Xiaojun wrote:
>
>> - By leaving some packages to be fully maintained by Debian we easily
>> end up shipping old packages without noticing it. I was quite shocked
>> when I updated the version tracker [1] how many out of date packages we
>> ship. If we're going to ship a quali
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Robert Ancell
wrote:
> - By updating packages in Debian and waiting for them to flow down to
> Ubuntu kills our velocity. It can change the time from upstream release
> to being in Ubuntu from hours (which is too long in my opinion) to days.
In most cases, it just
On 16/10/12 22:36, Iain Lane wrote:
> Given the way that both projects are now design led, and the fact that
> it's design decisions / philosophies that are driving many of these
> difficulties, it would seem prudent for the respective design teams to
> try to work together a bit more closely. I wo
On 16/10/12 23:47, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Le 16/10/2012 06:08, Jeremy Bicha a écrit :
>> On 15 October 2012 13:50, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
>>> That's going to be a controversial topic but I want to suggest we
>>> stay on
>>> stable GNOME this cycle, the reasons are (in random order):
>> Well yo
Le 16/10/2012 20:14, Robert Bruce Park a écrit :
Just a thought. I would like to see better cooperation, personally ;-)
Right, I think we all do and ideas on how to improve cooperation are
welcome ;-)
Also, last I heard, 'GNOME OS' is not intended to obsolete distros, it
is intended to obso
Le 16/10/2012 20:14, Robert Bruce Park a écrit :
Whoa whoa whoa... I never hear about Fedora or SuSE having these
clashes with GNOME. Are you sure the problem is really with GNOME and
not with us? Maybe this problem isn't "GNOME doesn't cooperate with
distributions" but rather "Canonical doesn'
On 16 October 2012 14:14, Robert Bruce Park wrote:
> Also, last I heard, 'GNOME OS' is not intended to obsolete distros, it is
> intended to obsolete jhbuild as a way for developers to hack on the
> absolute-cutting-edge-git-snapshots of GNOME.
The "GNOME OS" discussion in Boston was pretty much
On 12-10-16 05:47 AM, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
- GNOME started to focus on "GNOME OS" and give less importance to what
distributors think or do. It's a fair choice, they think they should
better focus on building the best system they can do and should not
compromise to "accommodate" others. I'm no
Le 16/10/2012 06:08, Jeremy Bicha a écrit :
On 15 October 2012 13:50, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
That's going to be a controversial topic but I want to suggest we stay on
stable GNOME this cycle, the reasons are (in random order):
Well you've been following GNOME development for longer than many
Le 16/10/2012 11:36, Iain Lane a écrit :
Given the way that both projects are now design led, and the fact that
it's design decisions / philosophies that are driving many of these
difficulties, it would seem prudent for the respective design teams to
try to work together a bit more closely. I w
Hiya,
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 07:50:04PM +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> Hey,
>
> That's a "classic", we usually review our plans for GNOME for the
> next cycle.
>
> That's going to be a controversial topic but I want to suggest we
> stay on stable GNOME this cycle […]
Ah, I think this is quit
Le 16/10/2012 06:08, Jeremy Bicha a écrit :
On 15 October 2012 13:50, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
That's going to be a controversial topic but I want to suggest we stay on
stable GNOME this cycle, the reasons are (in random order):
Well you've been following GNOME development for longer than many
On 16/10/12 15:08, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
>> One element to think about also is how that would impact the GNOME remix if
>> the plan there is not ship the latest GNOME...
> Seb, I blame the remix idea on you. ;) Anyway, if the GNOME remix
> becomes an official flavor, I was hoping to then ask for pe
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
> The other big example this cycle is ibus. GNOME 3.6 doesn't work
> properly without a not-released-as-stable version of ibus.
> http://pad.lv/1045914
Have you contacted with IBus upstream?
Developers of IBus are mostly using Fedora, which shi
On 15 October 2012 13:50, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
> That's going to be a controversial topic but I want to suggest we stay on
> stable GNOME this cycle, the reasons are (in random order):
Well you've been following GNOME development for longer than many of
us. What is it that's making GNOME 3 rel
I'm a fan of this for quality reasons.
Shipping very latest GNOME used to give Ubuntu a cutting edge feel, but
nowadays, shiny new Ubuntu features tend to come from Unity and
friends. The interesting new user-facing changes that GNOME brings are
(mostly) in Shell. So I don't think the defaul
Le 15/10/2012 19:50, Sebastien Bacher a écrit :
- the new version of libraries might have APIs our app writers might
want to use
On that I would note that we should keep a ppa for the unstable serie
packages, open to contributions. Most app writer do want to target users
of stable users out
Hey,
That's a "classic", we usually review our plans for GNOME for the next
cycle.
That's going to be a controversial topic but I want to suggest we stay
on stable GNOME this cycle, the reasons are (in random order):
- tracking unstable GNOME is taking lot of resources that we don't
invest
26 matches
Mail list logo
