[CentOS-devel] Fixing up Xfce for CentOS 7

[Toni Spets]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> You would also be repeating work from various other groups who are doing
> things in either COPRs or the Fedora XFCE mailing list. Kevin Fenzi
> (irc:nirik) and Adam Miller (maxamillion) are doing a lot of this work in
> their spare time. Helping them out would move the following issues a lot.
>

So why none of these inviduals have formed a SIG? Would you think we could
get everyone under the same roof to work towards some sort of Xfce SIG? Or
alternatively why that work isn't going towards EPEL or is it?

The whole point of me bringing this up like I did (help EPEL or do from
scratch) was to nudge people a bit to either gather up towards either
approach or both if there's enough interest in both of them. I definitely
don't want to duplicate effort for the sake of doing it "myself" if there
are people who have worked towards either goal before and have some
starting point that we can collectively contribute to.


> 1) A lot of plugins that were in 4.10 and earlier are no longer in 4.12
> 2) A lot of 4.12 was actually built around a gtk3 and tools which aren't
> in EL-7.
>
> Both of these are actually going to take a lot of work with upstream and
> the software itself to
>
> a) make new plugins which work with the 4.12 framework
> b) work on patches or newer upstream releases to make it work with EL-7.
>
> Once those are done there looks to be plans to get 4.12 in EL-7. I am
> hoping to get some time to look at scl's for EL-5 and EL-6 and those would
> be ones which might do fine with a refresh.
>

I wouldn't be very worried about the plugins. If upstream (Xfce) deprecated
them, why would they need to be forcefully dragged along? That's where the
SIG could work instead of EPEL as it would have the decision power to just
ignore everything that has been done before and focus on 4.12-only
experience. It wouldn't be an upgrade route from EPEL but something that is
clearly separate and maintained as such.

Although that 4.10 road sure sounds easier if GTK 3 dependency issues would
block 4.12 from being built on EL to begin with.


>
>
> --
> Stephen J Smoogen.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
>
>


-- 
Toni Spets
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20150313/ea329b29/attachment.html>