Opened 19 years ago
Last modified 18 years ago
#1710 closed task
GNOME-2.14.3 — at Version 30
Reported by: | Randy McMurchy | Owned by: | Randy McMurchy |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | 6.2.0 |
Component: | BOOK | Version: | SVN |
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | GNOME |
Cc: | Nico R. |
Description (last modified by )
Status update:
1) All the core packages are completely updated to 2.14.3. 2) All the additional packages have had the versions
updated to be consistent with GNOME-2.14.3
3) The md5sums and build data must still be entered
for the additional packages that had minor version updates.
Change History (33)
comment:1 by , 19 years ago
Status: | new → assigned |
---|
comment:2 by , 19 years ago
Cc: | added |
---|
comment:3 by , 19 years ago
comment:5 by , 19 years ago
Milestone: | future → 6.2 |
---|
GNOME core has been updated to 2.12.2. Some add-on packages have been checked out, the remainder will be addresses as time permits. I should be done inside a week.
comment:6 by , 19 years ago
Keywords: | GNOME added |
---|---|
Summary: | GNOME-2.12.2 → GNOME-2.14.0 |
Type: | defect → task |
Updating this bug to reflect the 2.14.0 version which will be released on 3/15. I'm submitting the last GNOME clean-up commits and have already started working with the 2.13.x branch.
comment:7 by , 19 years ago
One thing I'm going to do (if there are no objections) in this round of GNOME updates is change all the backticks (`) used in the --prefix commands to the more modern (and more functional in some cases) $(some_command) syntax.
comment:8 by , 19 years ago
Randy, will you be adding gnome-screensaver and gnome-power-manager for 2.14?
comment:9 by , 19 years ago
GNOME Screensaver is highly likely as it is now listed as a core desktop package (http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/desktop/2.13/2.13.91/sources/).
GNOME Power Manager is a let-folks-decide-and-if-we-think-it-should-we-will kind of thing. Is it something mostly used for laptops?
BTW, most of the (what I call) core desktop packages are now in BLFS. There are some that are not, and I look at them each time to see if there is some compelling reason to add it to the book. Things like dasher, evolution-{exchange,webcal}, gnome-system-tools (only because I think it would confuse everyone what Distro to choose so that GNOME uses the right tool) and vino just don't strike me as useful enough to be in the book.
Of course, anyone provided input saying that these packages should be in the book will be very much considered. I don't like being the sole judge and jury. If someone thinks a particular package should be in the book, we will always consider it, then make a decision based on community input and the other criteria used to decide if a new package should be in the book.
comment:10 by , 18 years ago
I, for me, think GNOME Power Manager would be a nice thing to include as I'm using a laptop, but I'm sure many users also use a laptop instead of a traditional desktop computer, so it would be good to give it a try (in my humble opinion)
anyway... it's supposed for the battery to respond or generate ACPI events, and maybe we should first add the corresponding dependency to HAL (acpid) for HAL to be able to manage events for GNOME Power Manager?
as a side note, I wrote a mail to the blfs-dev maillist some days ago about a correction in acpid, if this package is going to be considered (given the case GNOME Power Manager is going to be included in BLFS) maybe anyone should take a look into that mail...
Julio
comment:11 by , 18 years ago
acpid is not a dependency of HAL. In fact, HAL and D-BUS completely deprecate the need for having a daemon listening for ACPI events. What is still needed are scripts for acting on the ACPI events. Right now, all the distros do their own thing.
However, there is a new project started by the maintainers of HAL and gnome-power-manager based on RedHat's power management scripts. It's still extremely fresh, but you could probably get it to work with HAL. Here's the CVS for the new project pm-utils:
http://webcvs.freedesktop.org/pm-utils/
A simpler implementation which needs a small patch to HAL is used by Paldo. See the acpid page (which installs nothing from the package now) and the HAL page.
http://www.paldo.org/index.php?section=packages&page=main&query=acpid
http://www.paldo.org/index.php?section=packages&page=main&releaseid=30736
comment:13 by , 18 years ago
I received you email and just replied to it, Julio. And as mentioned in my reply, ORBit-2.14.0 compiles and tests perfectly for me.
comment:14 by , 18 years ago
Summary: | GNOME-2.14.0 → GNOME-2.14.2 |
---|
Targeting GNOME-2.14.2 now. It is due out on May 31st. I hope to have the book completly updated by June 7.
comment:15 by , 18 years ago
Well I sure misjudged that June 7th date. :-)
All GNOME2 packages have been updated. Here are outstanding issues:
1) gnome-mount needs some updating (pamconsole and other things
that I can't remember now)
2) Possibly GVM page needs updates as well (holding hands with #1) 3) Linux-PAM page updated with some info about pamconsole
New Packages 4) GNOME Screensaver will be added 5) Deskbar Applet may be added 6) Fast User Switch Applet may be added 7) GNOME Netstatus may be added 8) GNOME NetTool may be added
9) Anything else anyone can think of to make GNOME better
Dan, care to take a stab at the Gnome-mount/GVM/Linux-PAM stuff? Or at least some of it?
comment:16 by , 18 years ago
Certainly. I've got a few hours tonight, so I'll try to work on that a bit. I'll probably post a book diff here before I commit anything.
I'd also like to see gnome-power-manager, but it might add difficulties like g-v-m and friends because it's pushing the envelope with HAL. Gnome-screensaver is working great for me. I think it's a big improvement over xscreensaver. (OT: Plus f-spot installs a gnome-screensaver plugin where you can do a slide show of selected photos that works as well as any I've ever seen.)
comment:17 by , 18 years ago
Here's the first of a series of diffs that add optional pam_console. This is the first cut of the Linux-PAM changes. Later I'll post diffs for hal, gnome-volume-manager, shadow and gdm to make use of the optional pam_console.
comment:18 by , 18 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:19 by , 18 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
(submitted again, this time in the correct place)
With all due respect to the very fine work Dan has done so far, I did not realize that a *different* version of Linux-PAM was necessary. This puts me 100% against the idea now. The reason being is I don't believe we can support it properly. Additionally, it means we need to update whenever RedHat releases an updated rev or adds a patch. To me, it simply isn't worth it.
I'm now for just leaving things the way they are and moving on without even a mention of pam_console in the book, other than perhaps a note saying to check out the Wiki for the (many) changes required if you want to use pam_console.
comment:20 by , 18 years ago
OK. Well, hal and g-v-m still need info for configuration without pam_console. This is gonna have to wait until later. I'm out of time.
comment:21 by , 18 years ago
Please keep in mind, Dan, that I am just one out of the entire community. It may be that I'm the only one that thinks this cannot be properly supported. I wouldn't just completely drop it. Perhaps a discussion on -dev is appropriate.
comment:22 by , 18 years ago
I put the pam_console info in the Wiki.
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/wiki/linux-pam
It's essentially the same as the diff I submitted, but I found where the mythical tarball is located. This will work as a stopgap and allow patches for hal and g-v-m to be made that reference pam_console.
Feel free to comment on the wiki, or just make changes there.
comment:25 by , 18 years ago
I haven't thought a lot about the gnome-mount info. It's actually pretty good right now. I think the main benefit, though, is that gnome-mount gives you one generic way to invoke HAL mounting methods over D-BUS. So, gnome-vfs and gnome-volume-manager don't have to worry about how to mount things anymore. They just run gnome-mount with the device that's requested. Everything else including policy, mountpoint and mount options are taken care of.
The code in g-v-m for mounting right now basically boils down to
if (have_gnome_mount) ...run gnome-mount command with device udi... else ...huge amount of redundant code figuring out mount options, talking to HAL over D-BUS, etc...
Hopefully in the future, there will be a way to store mount options in GConf. I think this is kind of in limbo right now.
comment:26 by , 18 years ago
Summary: | GNOME-2.14.2 → GNOME-2.14.3 |
---|
May as well sneak the 2.14.3 update into BLFS before 6.2 is released. This will be a very minor update requiring very little testing. This release is scheduled to be available on August 2nd, 2006.
comment:27 by , 18 years ago
Since there is already a Trac ticket for a GTK+-2 update (2-10.x) I'll annotate here that the book should be updated to GTK+-2.8.20
comment:28 by , 18 years ago
No one has commented on the diffs I attached for describing hal/g-v-m use without pam_console. I will submit them soon if no one objects. The info for using pam_console is on the Wiki.
comment:29 by , 18 years ago
See r6282. I don't know what the status is for the rest of the bug, but the hal/gnome-volume-manager/gnome-mount stuff should all be done.
comment:30 by , 18 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
* Bug 1724 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *