development cycle (Was: Re: What's New inFedoraCore5Test2(LWN):Some comments)

[Gain Paolo Mureddu]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> Hi
>
>> Yes, but will there be GNOME 2.14 packages for FC4 while it still
>> is "current" and not moved to Legacy, like what was done with
>> KDE?
>>
> Unlikely.

This is exactly what I don't understand, would the same apply should
Fedora be based on QT and KDE for those packages too, then?

>
>> I mean, the common reason given to NOT provide GNOME update
>> packages usually is the ammount of system files or interactions
>> that GNOME has, I wonder if KDE does not have such issues,
>> wouldn't it then be a problem with GNOME's design, then?
>>
>>
> Thats a question for the development lists.

I guess I'll post this on the desktop mailing list rather than the
main devel list, as it is a direct desktop issue more than a
distro-wide issue (well... mostly).

> It would be better to ask in the development lists or the
> maintainer.
>
>> Has KDE already moved into Extras?
>>
> No it has not. Such plans are very much undecided.

Ahh, I read about this discussion som weeks ago, and I was kind of
surprised, actually.

>
>> Because in that should free up some hands to improve on GNOME (or
>> am I getting this totally wrong?).
>>
>> Sorry if my comments don't make any sense to anyone but me.
>>
>>
>>
> From the development as well as user perspective, what applies to
> package X does not always apply to package Y.

I understand that's not always the case, is just that the recent move
to KDE 3.5 and no next GNOME packages got me thinking. That's all.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD3wCyXM+XOp70dwoRAkHSAKCFRPZdSMNJOCwJxA18+ReaIpLFMACdF0sr
GwgmmAXeBB+2zI/21G3gfnk=
=jYIf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----