On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 03:52:26PM +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > > > > The challenge then is to upgrade the Gnome 2 code to use the newer > > > > libraries. > > > > > > Which is essentially impossible without *a* *lot* of coding. IIUC, this > > > is why Gnome3 has been rewritten from scratch, instead of repairing old > > > Gnome2 code. > > > > Nobody ever said software development was easy or without challenges. > > My original statement was in response to what Terry Barnaby asked --- why > doesn't someone repackage the old Gnome2 and make it available in Fedora? And > my response was that it is not just up to rebuilding srpms, because that code > will conflict with current Fedora. Right, and I agree it's not just a repackage-and-ship process. > My whole point is that it takes way more work than just doing a rebuild, and > therefore is not feasible. What's not feasible? It's not _easy_, and is going to require some committed developers to work on it. But's hardly impossible: it's just going to take someone to GSD. > > > IOW, nobody will make this happen. > > > > Then I think Kubler-Ross says you should accept things and move on. > > Oh, I have absolutely no problem accepting the new-and-shiny Gnome3. :-) I'm a > happy KDE user since RedHat 6.2 days, and after the whole KDE4.0 bitching by > some number of people on this list some time ago, it's a certain satisfaction > to see the same thing happening to Gnome-lovers now. Some of those people have > been advocating Gnome as being much better than KDE back in the time of havoc, > and now the same thing is happening to them... ;-) > > I just wonder if the same thing will happen to XFCE and LXDE in the future. > I'd love to see the reaction of the people then! ;-) I'm of the same mind there. I was a KDE user for a long time and was glad to have my boat rocked when 4 was released. After the initial learning curve was overcome I was right back where I wanted to be with getting my work done, which is the whole point of the computer in the first place. > > > So if you want a GUI for Kerberos, SELinux, LVM or network management, > > > you depend on libgnome. > > > > > > And if those packages do not depend on Gnome in F15 or F16, I'll be very > > > happily surprised. Having a gnome-free install of Fedora is one of my > > > dreams. ;-) > > > > Okay, then. So in the above 4 cases (not reall "a lot") I would say the > > challenge is to keep them in sync with the newer (or older) libgnome. > > Perhaps provide a compatibility layer? > > I think it would be much wiser to abstract out the UI part of those packages > to make them compatible with Qt as well as GTK, and otherwise to remove any DE > dependence. Providing a compatibility layer or keeping them in sync with > libgnome would be patching up a wrong solution to the problem, not to mention > the wasted coding effort. Well, a compatibility layer would be the foundation for abstracting out the desktop GUI dependencies, isn't it? Once there's a layer that lets the Gnome2-dependent apps talk to Gnome3, then it can be modified to work with other GUI libraries, right? -- Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc. Delivering value year after year. Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors. http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/
Attachment:
pgpbF6mSxaxsn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
