As of last night I could install F21 on a test machine only if I
specified Gnome. So I got a chance to try Gnome "Classic".
The good news: GC works, even over TigerVNC.
The bad news: GC is better than nothing, but not by much.
GC appears to be a highly lobotomized hack of Gnome 2,
missing most o
On 23.07.2014 20:08, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 10:59 +0200, poma wrote:
And "'works' at least" still don't helps here.
After more than two months.
I already investigated the cause of the problem, talked to the developer
about it, we agreed on how to fix it, and re-opened yo
On Wed, 2014-07-23 at 10:59 +0200, poma wrote:
> And "'works' at least" still don't helps here.
> After more than two months.
I already investigated the cause of the problem, talked to the developer
about it, we agreed on how to fix it, and re-opened your bug with the
details: https://bugzilla.re
On 23.07.2014 16:04, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 23:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
However what's the point now, after more than two months and how it can help us
here?
He wasn't linking for you to test it. He was pointing out GNOME's
continuous integration test system, a
On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 23:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > However what's the point now, after more than two months and how it can
> > help us here?
>
> He wasn't linking for you to test it. He was pointing out GNOME's
> continuous integration test system, and noting that it covers Class
On 23.07.2014 10:59, poma wrote:
On 23.07.2014 08:48, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 22:47 +0200, poma wrote:
OK, I tested with the "real" image
# file gnome-continuous-x86_64-runtime-20140722.30.qcow2
gnome-continuous-x86_64-runtime-20140722.30.qcow2: QEMU QCOW Image (v2),
8589
On 23.07.2014 08:48, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 22:47 +0200, poma wrote:
OK, I tested with the "real" image
# file gnome-continuous-x86_64-runtime-20140722.30.qcow2
gnome-continuous-x86_64-runtime-20140722.30.qcow2: QEMU QCOW Image (v2),
8589934592 bytes
https://wiki.gnome.o
On Tue, 2014-07-22 at 22:47 +0200, poma wrote:
> OK, I tested with the "real" image
> # file gnome-continuous-x86_64-runtime-20140722.30.qcow2
> gnome-continuous-x86_64-runtime-20140722.30.qcow2: QEMU QCOW Image (v2),
> 8589934592 bytes
>
> https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeContinuous
> http:
On 22.07.2014 21:34, poma wrote:
On 22.07.2014 21:25, poma wrote:
On 22.07.2014 20:32, poma wrote:
On 22.07.2014 15:26, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Sat, 2014-07-19 at 09:17 +0200, poma wrote:
For Fedora purposes we treat GNOME Shell and GNOME Classic as two
separate desktops; Classic has appro
On 22.07.2014 21:25, poma wrote:
On 22.07.2014 20:32, poma wrote:
On 22.07.2014 15:26, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Sat, 2014-07-19 at 09:17 +0200, poma wrote:
For Fedora purposes we treat GNOME Shell and GNOME Classic as two
separate desktops; Classic has approximately the same status as Xfce o
On 22.07.2014 20:32, poma wrote:
On 22.07.2014 15:26, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Sat, 2014-07-19 at 09:17 +0200, poma wrote:
For Fedora purposes we treat GNOME Shell and GNOME Classic as two
separate desktops; Classic has approximately the same status as Xfce or
LXDE, we ship it and some people
On 22.07.2014 15:26, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Sat, 2014-07-19 at 09:17 +0200, poma wrote:
For Fedora purposes we treat GNOME Shell and GNOME Classic as two
separate desktops; Classic has approximately the same status as Xfce or
LXDE, we ship it and some people use it, but we don't guarantee te
On Sat, 2014-07-19 at 09:17 +0200, poma wrote:
> > For Fedora purposes we treat GNOME Shell and GNOME Classic as two
> > separate desktops; Classic has approximately the same status as Xfce or
> > LXDE, we ship it and some people use it, but we don't guarantee testing
> > or require it to meet spe
On 18.07.2014 23:44, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 22:10 +0200, poma wrote:
On 18.07.2014 17:44, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 09:09 +0200, poma wrote:
More than the obvious link that you missed at the very beginning of
the thread, what really worries me is that
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 22:10 +0200, poma wrote:
> On 18.07.2014 17:44, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 09:09 +0200, poma wrote:
> >
> >> More than the obvious link that you missed at the very beginning of
> >> the thread, what really worries me is that this particular commit was
> >
On 18.07.2014 17:44, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 09:09 +0200, poma wrote:
More than the obvious link that you missed at the very beginning of
the thread, what really worries me is that this particular commit was
applied more than two months, and no one noticed or not published
On Fri, 2014-07-18 at 09:09 +0200, poma wrote:
> More than the obvious link that you missed at the very beginning of
> the thread, what really worries me is that this particular commit was
> applied more than two months, and no one noticed or not published so
> far it causes an obvious fault.
> Be
On 18.07.2014 02:41, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 13:19 +0200, poma wrote:
On 17.07.2014 00:04, poma wrote:
On 16.07.2014 21:07, poma wrote:
On 16.07.2014 18:47, poma wrote:
On 16.07.2014 18:24, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX wrote:
On 07/16/2014 09:10 AM, poma wrote:
https://bugzi
On Thu, 2014-07-17 at 13:19 +0200, poma wrote:
> On 17.07.2014 00:04, poma wrote:
> > On 16.07.2014 21:07, poma wrote:
> >> On 16.07.2014 18:47, poma wrote:
> >>> On 16.07.2014 18:24, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX wrote:
>
> On 07/16/2014 09:10 AM, poma wrote:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.red
On 17.07.2014 00:04, poma wrote:
On 16.07.2014 21:07, poma wrote:
On 16.07.2014 18:47, poma wrote:
On 16.07.2014 18:24, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX wrote:
On 07/16/2014 09:10 AM, poma wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120283
Has anyone run into something like this, so far?
pom
20 matches
Mail list logo
