On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 22:59, Luis Villa wrote: > On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 18:47, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: > > I fully support this. Like I said, g-s-t looks cool, and I am willing > > to do the work for FreeBSD. I guess my point is about g-s-t's _current_ > > readiness for 2.4. > > My[1] concern (and this is probably something that needs to go into GEP > 10) is not so much for 'does it run on FreeBSD' as ''can it run on > FreeBSD.' Joe, if it's your opinion that porting the current g-s-t > infrastructure will be difficult/very hard (once you've been able to > inspect it thoroughly), that's a huge strike against it. I looked at the Perl modules a few weeks ago, and thought, "man, that's a lot of work." However, after reading Carlos' mail, I think it's a doable thing. I still need some clarification on what to do in the case of partitions.pl where the FreeBSD module would differ almost 100% from the Linux module. I would like to give it a try and report back if I can. I'll try to have a time estimate by Friday if that's acceptable. Joe > > OTOH, I don't think 'it's not yet ported to $FOO' should be a serious > strike- we just want to make sure that when someone does want to port it > somewhere it is reasonably possible to do so. > > Luis > > [1] I'm speaking only for myself, though I'd assume that most of release > team would agree if polled. > > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > desktop-devel-list gnome org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list -- PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part