Re: [Nautilus-list] nautilus and evolution

[Ben FrantzDale <bfrantzdale hmc edu>]

> 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.

I'd go for a mega-tarball also.

--Ben


> 
> -re
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Nautilus-list mailing list
> Nautilus-list lists eazel com
> http://www.eazel.com/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list