Hi all,
People are contacting me every now and then about gnome-panel. There are
several people willing to work on it to improve it, but more with the
goal of making a GNOME 2-like session than a fallback session. So far,
I've been accepting all contributions, except the ones that make the
panel
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:05:43AM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
But there's an interest for going in other directions, and I don't want
to block those motivated people if we don't need gnome-panel anymore for
our official GNOME releases, which means if we don't need the fallback
mode anymore.
Le lundi 25 juin 2012, à 12:56 +0200, Olav Vitters a écrit :
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:05:43AM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
But there's an interest for going in other directions, and I don't want
to block those motivated people if we don't need gnome-panel anymore for
our official GNOME
Le Monday 25 June 2012 à 11:05 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit :
For the record, I've no strong opinion on this myself. I might lean
towards going the llvmpipe way so that the people who want to hack
freely on the fallback components may do so.
More and more GNOME components are using clutter
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:05 AM, Vincent Untz vu...@gnome.org wrote:
Hi all,
People are contacting me every now and then about gnome-panel. There are
several people willing to work on it to improve it, but more with the
goal of making a GNOME 2-like session than a fallback session. So far,
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 09:05 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
But there's an interest for going in other directions, and I don't want
to block those motivated people if we don't need gnome-panel anymore for
our official GNOME releases, which means if we don't need the fallback
mode anymore.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:05:10AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 09:05 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
One example is ppc - no llvm support on that architecture...
Or s390 (anymore) or arm (effectively). Honestly I'm coming to resent
How often is software rendering needed
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 16:16 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:05:10AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 09:05 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
One example is ppc - no llvm support on that architecture...
Or s390 (anymore) or arm (effectively). Honestly
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:05:43AM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi all,
People are contacting me every now and then about gnome-panel. There are
several people willing to work on it to improve it, but more with the
goal of making a GNOME 2-like session than a fallback session. So far,
I've
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 17:36 +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
We have people working on llvmpipe/gallium/kms support for OpenBSD but
it takes time since we are not a large-scale project.
llvmpipe has no kernel dependencies (beyond SSE2 support I guess), and I
don't intend to change that. I do
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:08:11PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-25 at 17:36 +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
We have people working on llvmpipe/gallium/kms support for OpenBSD but
it takes time since we are not a large-scale project.
llvmpipe has no kernel dependencies
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 05:36:29PM +0200, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
I know I don't represent the majority nor the core target of GNOME but
anyway... :)
I for one would like to keep the fallback mode a little longer. I have
hundreds of (corporate; these are the only one I can have real stats
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:27:13PM +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
For what reason do they use fallback mode? Not being able to run GNOME
shell, or not liking GNOME shell?
The immediate reason is that they need a coherent Desktop on all their
different hardware. And we cannot guarantee hardware 3D
13 matches
Mail list logo
