On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Anders F Björklund < afb at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > This seems like a good idea (providing the COPR), but apparently this > (Xfce in EPEL) handled by the Xfce SIG rather than the EPEL SIG. Or perhaps > both of the Fedora SIGs at once, but at any rate it's not in CentOS Extras. > This is why Xfce SIG would be nice. To get people together. > > Putting the packages in a COPR was how it was handled last year, and it > seems that it didn't work out perfectly ? But perhaps with some more > awareness and documentation, it could be a better and more stable option. > This is where the Xfce SIG could do that when people get the 4.10 experience by default from EPEL and if you want newer you could use a specific COPR/repo for that. I'm fairly sure people didn't use nonamedotc's COPR because they didn't know it and *personal* COPRS don't boast stableness but a SIG COPR/repo would in my eyes. Even though nonamedotc is one of the maintainers it's still a personal repo and he is probably not committed to keep such very updated and supported. I'm not using nonamedotc's 4.12 COPR because I wasn't aware of it before you told me off-list this a few days ago and instead waited for F22 packages to go into testing so I could pull them from there. Awareness is the key here as you said. > Xfce got off to a slow start, since EPEL-7 was still in beta when CentOS-7 > came out. But I wouldn't say it's in a bad shape now, and it already had a > pretty good Xfce 4.10 experience even with the Fedora 18 packages. > > Most of the remaining problems are the same for all of el5-el6-el7, and > it's about the completeness of the packaging (the rpms and the comps). And > possibly doing some branches and rebuilds, of the missing packages. > I've rebuilt ristretto, mousepad and the patched xfdesktop and xfce4-settings in a testing COPR and they seem to be fine. Also xfce4-whiskermenu-plugin as you told worked wonders so everything should be rather easy to get going. > > We have something like 90% on EL6, and 10% on EL5. But only 1% (testing) > EL7. So it is more interesting to fix the existing releases, and that > doesn't need any Xfce rebases. New fancy stuff from Fedora isn't needed at > all, more like rebuilds/branches of old stuff that is missing from EPEL. It > would be better to use some mechanism like SCL for add-ons, and keep the > mainline at the current Xfce releases. The EL "rebases" *always* seem to > break stuff. > > The COPR/repo approach for 4.12 seems good . The SIG can spread the awareness of it and maybe have an easy-to-install package (like epel-release is) to easily switch from 4.10 to 4.12 if such is maintained. There was some talk about an "Alternative Desktops" SIG for CentOS last > year, but there wasn't enough interest or volunteers to form a group. Then > we tried to narrow it down to just a "Xfce Desktop" group, but in the end > that came down to "so just use EPEL". But maybe a spin is a nice focal > point, then the packaging can continue in EPEL and the CentOS Xfce SIG can > just offer a special ISO with the epel-release and @xfce-desktop already > added to it. > > > Basically I just want a better Xfce user experience, not join a club. ;-) > If there are not enough people to form the club, we just work with EPEL. But we don't get any semi-official Xfce spins out in the open without having a SIG I suppose. Looks like forming a SIG is such a big thing people are put off by it? -- Toni Spets -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20150315/14447832/attachment-0008.html>