Re: [Nautilus-list] nautilus and evolution

[Ramiro Estrugo <ramiro eazel com>]

Mattias Eriksson wrote:
> 
> Well, If I can use the same GConf, ORBit, bonobo, gnome-vfs and oaf as
> with other apps then there is no need for a binary tar archive. But
> since you provide those rpms marked EazelSource I got the feeling that
> you have modifications in the source, and that things might not work with
> other apps.
> 

The "EazelSource" and "EazelSnapshot" strings inducate that the tarballs
and/or rpms were built by the automated build process.  As far as I know
there are no 'eazel specific' hacks in these.  The .spec files used are
straight from CVS and should always match what we advertise are the
required versions on the HACKING file.

We are constantly fixing stuff so that what is in CVS reflects reality
as much as possible.

> Is it possible for me to use the Helix versions of all things and just add
> the packages missing from http://developer.eazel.com/download/hourly/current/?

Yes this should be possible, we havent done anything that I am aware of
to prevent this, even if we havent tried it (its possible someone here
has).  If you try it, please post your results.

> 
> If that's the case I happily use the rpms, if not I prefere a big tar archive
> containing everything. And in this case I don't think I'm alone...
> 
> //Snaggen
>

I think that most people will prefer snapshot rpms since they are easier
to manage.  However, as I said before, if there is a demand for
tarballs, we can make them.

-re