Date: 10 Feb 2002 12:24:23 -0500 From: Joe Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com> To: sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Anders Andersson <anders@hack.org>, Ade Lovett <ade@FreeBSD.ORG>, gnome@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Work on GNOME2 Message-ID: <1013361864.59228.8.camel@shumai.marcuscom.com> In-Reply-To: <1013356106.333.20.camel@notebook> References: <1013330639.260.25.camel@notebook> <B88B92A8.5527%ade@FreeBSD.org> <20020210091736.GB1403@sushi.sanyusan.se> <1013356106.333.20.camel@notebook>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 2002-02-10 at 10:49, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > On Sun, 2002-02-10 at 11:17, Anders Andersson wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:59:52AM -0600, Ade Lovett wrote: > > > On 02/10/02 02:43, "Maxim Sobolev" <sobomax@mail.ru> wrote: > > > > I suspect that at least two people (Ade and Anders) independently > > > > started some initial work on getting GNOME2 bits and pieces together for > > > > FreeBSD and I wonder if the better approach would be to put ongoing work > > > > into remotely accessible cvs repo. This approach played just fine when > > > > we were working on FreeBSD/GNOME site and I think should also help in > > > > this case by reducing duplicate efforts and drawing more resources to > > > > the work. > > > > > > I'm not convinced about the need for a separate cvs repo for this, but I do > > > think that we should be thinking about putting out an x11/gnome2 metaport > > > based on the current tarballs as soon as possible, to get the new technology > > > into the ports tree and available for experimentation by more advanced GNOME > > > users (ie: those that don't mind trashing their systems). > > > > > > At the moment, I am in the process of setting up a sandboxed 4-STABLE > > > environment for complete testing and development of gnome2/FreeBSD > > > alongside the existing gnome metaport. > > > > > > I am not yet sure of the exact procedure that will be needed in terms of > > > incorporating gnome2 into the tree in terms of repo-copies. > > Ade, please think this out and let us discuss your plan, so that there > are no duplicated (e.g. wasted) efforts. Perhaps if there would be no > intermediate cvs repo then some evolutionary approach should be used - > i.e. instead of trying to put it all together and then commit as a one > big megapatch (the task which certainly would take quite some time) > start committing it ASAP component by component in the dependency order. > This also solves problem with massive number of repo copying required, > as the work would be spread over some period of time. This is especially true since there are already some GNOME 2 components in the ports tree (gtk 1.3, glib 1.3, pango, and atk). The GNOME 2.0 developer site is also a great resources for modules versions and the dependency list (http://developer.gnome.org/dotplan/). > > > > Perhaps the time has come to agree upon an initial set of snapshot distfiles > > > that we will use for x11/gnome2, then use those to develop the initial > > > platform, with upgrades occuring after the initial x11/gnome2 metaport etc > > > has been built and committed to the tree. > > I think that GNOME2 alpha 2 could be a good start. Agreed. > > > > For something as big as gnome2, I think we should be at least offering this > > > directly to end-users, with the big red letter saying "if you want 'stable' > > > GNOME, use 1.x, but feel free to try 2.x if you want to be famous", rather > > > than a private cvs-repo. > > > > I have to agree with Ade here. I think putting our early work in the > > ports tree for GNOME2 would be a good thing. > > See my comments above. But who will work on which components? Would it be a benefit if to set up some kind of group project system insofar as to let the group know what modules people are working on? Joe > > -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-gnome" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1013361864.59228.8.camel>