bug#67651: [gnome-team] What should we do with the "gnome" package?

[Liliana Marie Prikler <liliana.prikler@gmail.com>]

Am Dienstag, dem 09.01.2024 um 12:10 +0100 schrieb Vivien Kraus:
> Dear Guix,
> 
> [...]
I know that a bunch of packages have reasons not to exist in Guix, I
simply wanted to point out that we don't have them.

> > I think we should settle on what to do with the gnome package soon
> > to not stall the branch even further.  We can already start working
> > towards GNOME 46 after the merge :)
> In my opinion, we should have atkmm:2.28.3, but I see atkmm-2.28
> being used as a propagated-inputs for gtkmm-3, and gtkmm-3 is an
> input for inkscape. That’s a world rebuild…
> 
> For Cantarell fonts, maybe we should point to the latest commit?
> That’s another world rebuild though, and for very little gain as of
> now.
> 
> I’m not sure a flatpak-only gnome software is a hard requirement. It
> would be most confusing. Gnome-tour is nice, but I think we can live
> without it until we figure out this “rust” stuff.
With "the gnome package" I mean the gnome metapackage that made you
raise this issue.

> > There is some gnome-adjacent software (particularly extensions, I
> > don't want all of them to break like they did the last time and the
> > time before) to have a look at as well before the merge
> 
> You mean, the gnome-shell-extension-* in (gnu packages gnome-xyz)? I
> don’t use them (I was told they were frequently broken so I never
> bothered to try them!) so I’m not sure I can reliably tell whether
> they work correctly.
They tend to get broken with each gnome update, but I'm here to change
that.  Testing them is actually quite simple: construct a guix system
vm with a gnome that has all the extensions, run it, then enable all of
them one by one in the GUI.  If there's a version incompatibility, you
will notice.

Cheers