From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: Brasero, or gnome without gnome Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:07:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20131003110744.GB6327@debian> References: <20131002124146.GA15506@debian> <20131002180223.GA873@debian> <874n8zsc3c.fsf@gnu.org> <20131002205600.GA1680@debian> <20131002211808.GA26447@debian> <87li2bnwf9.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51951) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VRgl9-0004KB-Iy for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 07:08:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VRgl2-0001BN-5N for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 07:07:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87li2bnwf9.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-15?Q?Court=E8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Thu, Oct 03, 2013 at 12:24:26AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > :-) Can’t it use GNU xorriso as the back-end? I do not think so. > > And not to start a flame war, but I see it as a real incentive to consider > > kde packaging... > I think you’d encounter similar patterns there. Definitely, I expect the same kinds of problems. But having seen both k3b and brasero now, I know which one I prefer... > Besides, while I have nothing against KDE (esp. if someone else does the > job ;-)), I think we should support GNOME as it is somewhat related to > GNU. That is true. But I feel about GNOME as you feel about KDE, and am not overly motivated to do more work on it, so it would be good if some volunteer GNOME users stepped forward to take over. Would it be okay to push the current moderately usable brasero package so as not to lose the work? > > As a first step, for qt, I think we might need to get the cmake build > > system working. Cyril, would you be able to make it work on x86_64, > > potentially by disabling the failing test in cmake? > Good news: the failing test no longer fails on x86_64! That could be a > result of the ‘ldd’ fix in core-updates. Excellent news indeed! Andreas