Re: Session DBus protocol
On 26 October 2010 03:57, Ryan Lortie wrote: > In short, I actually have absolutely no complaints about how it works > now. Please disregard. :) Cool, one less API break :-) Richard. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: Final GNOME 2.91/3.0 schedule
Original-Nachricht > Datum: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 20:06:10 -0500 > Von: Jason Clinton > Betreff: Re: Final GNOME 2.91/3.0 schedule > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 16:23, Andre Klapper wrote: > > The release schedule for 2.91/3.0 > > is FINAL now. > > The video team asked for an expansion of the UI freeze period of two weeks > to help with the launch video production lead times. There were no > objections; why wasn't this approved? See my other email on d-d-l. Thanks, andre -- -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed! http://www.iomc.de Neu: GMX De-Mail - Einfach wie E-Mail, sicher wie ein Brief! Jetzt De-Mail-Adresse reservieren: http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/demail ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: I cant build mozilla external dependency with jhbuild
On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 17:21 +0200, Javier Jardón wrote: > mozilla (needed by gnome-shell) can't be builded because the version > in moduleset (1.9.1.11) is no longer > available in mozilla ftp repos: > http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/xulrunner/releases/ > > Should be updated to 1.9.1.14 or maybe 1.9.2.10 ? I don't know why they release xulrunner sources now and then, but it's advised to build Xulrunner from Firefox sources. Firefox 3.6.11 would result in Xulrunner 1.9.2.11 for example. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: I cant build mozilla external dependency with jhbuild
Am Mittwoch, den 27.10.2010, 14:06 +0200 schrieb Jan de Groot: > On Tue, 2010-10-26 at 17:21 +0200, Javier Jardón wrote: > > mozilla (needed by gnome-shell) can't be builded because the version > > in moduleset (1.9.1.11) is no longer > > available in mozilla ftp repos: > > http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/xulrunner/releases/ > > > > Should be updated to 1.9.1.14 or maybe 1.9.2.10 ? > > I don't know why they release xulrunner sources now and then, but it's > advised to build Xulrunner from Firefox sources. Firefox 3.6.11 would > result in Xulrunner 1.9.2.11 for example. How ugly. Who advises downloading a frontend if you want to just build a backend? andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: GNOME 2.91/3.0 Schedule Draft
Am Mittwoch, den 27.10.2010, 12:23 -0500 schrieb Jason Clinton: > The release team gives higher priority to the two weeks for UI > changes. > GNOME Marketing team is encouraged to work with the GNOME > shell folks to > get material. > > > I'm not 100% clear on how to parse the above paragraph but I'll take a > stab at it. Sorry, let me try again: We think it's more important to give those two weeks to developers if further changes to the UI are needed in order to finish the product. It's clear that this unfortunately puts more time pressure on the marketing team (and e.g. the docs team). > We're distributing screen casts on the GNOME 3 launch site which show > off the Shell, Gtk+ 3 and its new theme abilities and some high > profile applications. > > > The worst-case scenario would be any Shell look-and-feel or Gtk+ theme > changes landing after the videos are filmed. If that were to happen, > we'll have to launch without the planned GNOME 3 launch site being > ready. To me the worst case looks like the site would be functional but would provide videos with mistakes. andre -- mailto:ak...@gmx.net | failed http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: I cant build mozilla external dependency with jhbuild
On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 15:32 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: > > I don't know why they release xulrunner sources now and then, but > it's > > advised to build Xulrunner from Firefox sources. Firefox 3.6.11 > would > > result in Xulrunner 1.9.2.11 for example. > > How ugly. Who advises downloading a frontend if you want to just build > a > backend? Firefox and xulrunner sources are identical: unpack both firefox 3.6.10 and xulrunner 1.9.2.10 sources and diff the resulting directories. Though the tarballs differ due to compression differences, the sources are exactly the same. If mozilla releases a security update for firefox, I want to have a matching xulrunner security release, as bugs in the javascript engine in firefox also affect bugs in the javascript engine used by xulrunner applications. The latest firefox release at this moment is 3.6.12, which fixes a 0day vulnerability, where the latest xulrunner source available is 1.9.2.10. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
