xfce-4.2.0 i386 rpms for devel/rawhide

Kevin Fenzi kevin-fedora-extras at scrye.com
Mon Mar 14 17:17:04 UTC 2005

Hash: SHA1

>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> writes:

>> - - 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. :)

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

Yeah. Luckily Terminal is very self contained. 
I guess the upsteam is a pre, not a beta. Will see about either
merging the fixes or just going to the 0.2.4-pre1 and see how stable
it is. 

>> 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?)

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


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

Yeah, agreed. 

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

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

"Don't break things" ? :) 

Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>


More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list