xfce-4.2.0 i386 rpms for devel/rawhide

Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa at redhat.com
Mon Mar 14 05:12:46 UTC 2005

On Sun, 2005-03-13 at 20:31 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>Hash: SHA1
>Finally got my test box re-installed and updated to the latest devel. 
>Thus, there are now xfce-4.2.0 i386 binary rpms for rawhide/devel
>available now at: 
>Most everything built with no problems, with 2 exceptions: 
>- - Terminal has a ton of issues with the new DBUS api. However, there
>is a new version in beta upstream with the new dbus api supported. 
>Hopefully that will go final before fc4. :) 

If it doesn't, you should either patch the fixes in from beta, or pull
Terminal from the FC4 branch until its fixed.

>Speaking of versions, should I have 4.2.0 (or 4.2.1) tagged for both
>the fc3 and devel trees? Is there any problem with fedora extras
>releasing a newer version of a package than was in core?
>(Or should we have 4.0.6 or nothing in the fc3 tree, and only do the
>newer versions for devel/fc4?)

Its your call. Normally, we don't let Fedora Extras packages conflict
with Core, but since xfce moved from Core to Extras, as long as your
packages are a newer version, there shouldn't be any issue.

You'd just need to upgrade everything that depends on any of the xfce
bits (which you seem to be doing already), to avoid breaking FC3 xfce
users who have Extras in their yum.conf.

For other packages, this would be a logistical nightmare, but xfce is
fairly well self-contained.

(I need to word this in a more formal policy, but I think you get the

Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Sales Engineer || GPG Fingerprint: 93054260
Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices)
Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org
Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my!

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list