On Sat, 2007-12-29 at 18:30 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Dec 29, 2007 4:42 PM, Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org> wrote: > > Depends if dbus 1.2 is released on time. If so, we'll switch. Otherwise > > system-tools-backends has to revert to the old activation method. > > > While I agree that dbus 1.2 is overdue, note that there is no real > problem with requiring dbus 1.1.2. We've used it in Fedora for quite a > while now, without problems. it's simply that we do not want to release GNOME 2.22 with a dependency on an unstable (1.1.x) d-bus version, but prefer to either depend on stable 1.0.x or stable 1.2.x. it seems like there isn't much holding back a d-bus 1.2 release (see [1], thanks olav for the link), i've asked again on the d-bus list[2] to clarify the 1.2 release plans. andre [1] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/2007-November/008992.html [2] http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dbus/2007-December/009091.html -- mailto:ak-47 gmx net | failed http://www.iomc.de/ | http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part