[CentOS-devel] Fixing up Xfce for CentOS 7

Stephen John Smoogen

smooge at gmail.com
Fri Mar 13 22:32:42 UTC 2015

On 13 March 2015 at 14:07, Toni Spets <toni.spets at iki.fi> wrote:

> 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?
Most of the people I know who are working on it are doing it over in the
Fedora SIGs.

> 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.

Understood. My apologies if I am coming across terse or angry. Trying to
fight a headache all day. By the way I will be happy to join or help you
form a SIG.

>> 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.
Well the problem is that your potential consumers get very angry when those
plugins 'disappear'. Any SIG is going to have to do a good-effort on seeing
if they are possible to keep in some form.. otherwise you end up with most
of the emails on the list from some cranky person who upgraded their
desktop and can't find out if the network is on in the way they wanted.
People get very cranky about things like fonts not being exactly the same,
icons moving around from where they were etc Most of the work of a SIG is
usually making XFCE look as much like the last XFCE (change out XFCE for
i3, enlightenment, etc.)

> 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.

The upstream XFCE people seem very helpful on getting such things dealt
with.. it is just a matter of working out what the best fix is.


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

Stephen J Smoogen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20150313/053a549d/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list