Status of Gnome 3?

outZider

outZider

Is there any work being done on a Gnome 3 port for FreeBSD? The release is coming up really soon (next month), and I'd love to not have to play with it on a RPM-based Linux distribution. :)

I'm not seeing a lot of activity on the freebsd-gnome list, but would love to help out if it is required.
 
Check out whatever's going on with FreeBSD-9-CURRENT. Chances are good (I bet) that GNOME 3 shows up in -CURRENT before anywhere else.

(I imagine the mailinglists would be more helpful for this question than the forums.)
 
ian-nai said:
Check out whatever's going on with FreeBSD-9-CURRENT. Chances are good (I bet) that GNOME 3 shows up in -CURRENT before anywhere else.
Click to expand...
-CURRENT has nothing to do with this. The version of the base OS is completely independent of the version of the ports tree. You do know we only have one ports tree?
 
SirDice is correct there is only one ports tree the marcuscom repository is not official so that's more of a development port tree that marcuscom setup himself to help out testers
 
Hopefully, the moderators will not remove this posting like they did when I tried to repost about the advocacy document I wrote.

Note on Gnome3. The FreeBSD gnome team has openly stated that they do not wish to support any Tier2 architectures. This means any device which is not PC98, i386, or amd64. For PowerPC and SPARC64, the only developing is being done by myself. Anyone using machines with either of these and wants to adjust the port Makefiles to reflect the configure arguments which have worked for me, are more than welcome to help out.
 
sossego said:
Note on Gnome3. The FreeBSD gnome team has openly stated that they do not wish to support any Tier2 architectures.
Click to expand...

That sounds awesome. So presumably now gnome2 is going to stay in the ports tree and become very stable and well tested! (I hope)

Of course there is always the risk that gnome2 will also be removed so that then tier2 architectures have absolutely no gnome desktop whatsoever...

The first choice sounds best but it is really up to the maintainers and gnome@ if they have the time.
 
My guess is that Gnome2 will stay in for some time, since Gnome3 is such a fundamental change.

That said, Gnome3 was released yesterday. :)
 
outZider said:
My guess is that Gnome2 will stay in for some time, since Gnome3 is such a fundamental change.

That said, Gnome3 was released yesterday. :)
Click to expand...
Dear god I hope so. GNOME 2 has overall been a fantastic DE, and I'm really disappointed with the GNOME devs after seeing what they've done with GNOME 3.
 
It seems that many people still prefer the old version GNOME.

Can we do some votes and ask the corresponding porters to keep it in the ports tree as long as possible?
 
fender0107401 said:
It seems that many people still prefer the old version GNOME.

Can we do some votes and ask the corresponding porters to keep it in the ports tree as long as possible?
Click to expand...
This is not a decision that the porters can make. If development moves from gnome2 to gnome3 eventually gnome2 will become unsupported.
 
With regards to keeping a working Gnome 2 in the ports, it would be awesome but seems unlikely and as proven by xfce4, a slightly broken version is preferred over a fully working older version which is a massive shame. (xfce4 lost auto mount support and shutdown support now needs to be hacked in)

Although FreeBSD does not have an official GUI (and I agree why). It would be nice to have an old completely tailor made desktop environment available in ports rather than brand new (but slightly broken) ones.

Unfortunately someone is going to need to spend time maintaining this desktop environment, which is why Gnome (and xfce) are stupid choices... They are simply too large and too complex to maintain. For example xfce3 is still in ports because it is very simple to maintain, whereas gnome1 has long gone since it was also pretty bloated and complex.

For those of you who hate all this needless change... there is always OpenCDE (shameless plug :p)
 
Whether people like it or not is really irrelevant to this discussion. Some will like it, some won't, and that's the beauty of multiple window managers in FreeBSD and Linux. Gnome 2 will be around for a while, Gnome 3 fallback looks just like Gnome 2, so there are options even within the Gnome space.

That said, I'd really like to not have to use Linux to get Gnome 3. :)
 
outZider said:
Gnome 3 fallback looks just like Gnome 2, so there are options even within the Gnome space.
Click to expand...

Have you seen gnome fallback in gnome3? It's a hack job that isn't going to be supported for very long and from what I have heard not very functional.
 
fossala said:
Have you seen gnome fallback in gnome3? It's a hack job that isn't going to be supported for very long and from what I have heard not very functional.
Click to expand...

That's right, I have GNOME 3 on an older Linux laptop and it's bad. I mean, REALLY bad.
 
Gnome 3 looks like a cell phone GUI. There are missing features for a desktop environment. If you want to see quickly how it looks, install Fedora 15 Beta and do updates. For full functional Gnome shell you need hardware 3D support.

Off topic:
FreeBSD Gnome team must be check and reorganise Gnome2 files and dependencies because some of files can't compile and installation fail. (for example dconf)

Sorry about my English.

Best Regards
Hasan Alp
 
ekd123 said:
Well, could I see a stable GNOME3 port in FreeBSD 9?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. FreeBSD branches have no relevance with the ports tree.
ekd123 said:
And, GNOME3 had been released, but why there is GNOME 2.90?
Click to expand...
Am not sure I understand this. Gnome3 will be available once it has been tested by the porters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top