On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 09:00 +0000, Richard wrote: > On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:53:50 +0100 > Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2011-11-14 at 00:16 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote: > > > Richard wrote: > > > > Bob Proulx wrote: > > > > > Instead of trying to use alien to install rpms directly perhaps you > > > > > might say exactly what you are wanting to accomplish and the brain > > > > > trust on the mailing list might have a native alternative suggestion? > > > > > > > > I thought I had Bob, its the either 4 or 5 Gnome3 extensions which > > > > allow further functions to be added to the Gnome3 desktop. > > > > > > I guess I just had not followed the thought of the message well enough > > > to know exactly what you were asking for. It wasn't clear to me. > > > > > > > AND it definitely worth complaining about as they are in existence, > > > > the other distros using Gnome3 have them so why not make them > > > > available in debian. > > > > > > As Camalen writes those appear to be available in 3.2. > > > > > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=645554#22 > > > > > > They are going to be available in the released version. But you are > > > running the version that is still be developed to be the release > > > version. > > > > > > > They are :- > > > > gnome-shell-extension-common > > > > gnome-shell-extension-cpu-temp > > > > gnome-shell-extension-remove-accessibility-icon > > > > gnome-shell-extension-alternative-tab > > > > gnome-shell-extension-alternative-status-menu > > > > gnome-shell-extension-auto-move-windows > > > > gnome-shell-extensions-common. > > > > > > Since 3.2 is available in experimental then perhaps the best thing > > > would be to install 3.2 from experimental to get these additional > > > features. > > > > > > It doesn't seem like it can be any worse for you than it is now. > > > Might as well be, In for a penny, In for a pound. > > > > > > > Its a bit like buying a car, automobile, with the wheels being sold as > > > > extras. > > > > ... > > > > I don't consider it much to ask for that when the new gnome shell is > > > > added that the extensions are added as well. > > > > > > I don't disagree with you there. I think it is really terrible of > > > GNOME to have made this redeployment. It would have been fine in my > > > mind if they had created a new direction and had left the old GNOME > > > available. Then people could evaluate the new paradigms and > > > transitioned from one to the other as they decided to change. But it > > > is really bad that GNOME burned the bridge down first before having > > > created the new one. That forced people to transition and to > > > transition before GNOME was ready for it. > > > > > > However Unstable and Testing are by design are not released products. > > > They are the development area for the release. Which means that > > > anyone running Testing cannot have the same expectations as those > > > running Stable. During big transitions such as this it is going to > > > have some turbulence. > > > > > > I am not directing this at your but at the mailing list at large. > > > > > > People who can't handle that should be running Stable instead instead > > > of Testing or Unstable. And I know there are a lot of people who will > > > come back and say, "But Stable isn't new enough." Well, Testing right > > > now during the GNOME redeployment is what "New" looks like. There is > > > going to be some thrash during big transitions. You can't have it > > > both ways. At least not with the current release strategy. Perhaps > > > in the future continuously-usable-testing then maybe. > > > > > > Bob > > > > Wrong! > > > > I still can restore the last GNOME 2 version of testing from a backup > > and lock the GNOME 2 packages. There's no need to use the outdated > > stable. > > > > For sure, using testing does mean that it's wise to backup, before doing > > risky upgrades. > > > > GNOME 3 anyway isn't ok at the moment, so it's not about using testing, > > but about a dropped GNOME 2 that is stable. > > > > "But it is really bad that GNOME burned the bridge down first before > > having created the new one." > > > > Why should we switch the DE? Why shouldn't we fight to get back GNOME 2 > > if we prefer this? If most people prefer GNOME 3 it would be ok. But > > seemingly there are more voices that don't like GNOME 3. > > > > - Ralf > > > > > > The problem is Ralf that Debian is always a bit slow to envelop new s/w, so > the problems we are seeing with Gnome-shell are OLD, compared to other > distros. > There's saying about opening the stable door after the horse has bolted, in > this case > the horse has been to the knackers yard. > I've taken the risk of using SID and no problems, my configuration of the > desktop looks and feels like > gnome2-shell. > The major problem has been caused by the extensions being held back by the > maintainers. > G2-shell for ages has has similar graphical menus, but most has used it in > its classical > mode, so that there has been a natural progression, but most including me > either chose to ignore it or > were unaware of it.. > My concerns are also audio related as I use the computer for software defined > radio, and thats where > latency is very important , as the problem then becomes much the same as lip > sync with digital TV. > > I've yet to recompile the apps using GCC 4.6, but I don't envisage a problem > unless a developer has > decided that the mass users can manage with simplified fortran, floating > point range. > > > BTW has multimedia a unstable branch, as if I'm running Sid , I should be > using the newer multimedia > stuff as well ?.
It seems like testing's multimedia is quiet alright, aka relatively up to date. Hm? Perhaps I should try GNOME from unstable for my testing?! It's worth to think about it. Regards, Ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1321262948.3048.15.camel@debian
