Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME 3.36.1 Released With First Batch Of Fixes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GNOME 3.36.1 Released With First Batch Of Fixes

    Phoronix: GNOME 3.36.1 Released With First Batch Of Fixes

    Following last month's release of GNOME 3.36 with its many new features and performance improvements, GNOME 3.36.1 is out today with the first batch of updates/fixes to this H1'2020 open-source desktop...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag....36.1-Released

  • #2
    Fedora already got some of the packages. Same with Debian.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
      Fedora already got some of the packages. Same with Debian.
      Arch had most of the packages since days ago and since yesterday has the whole desktop.

      Comment


      • #4
        TemplarGR Yes. Arch is fast to pick up tagged releases. I still think we should praise Fedora for all the QA. No one comes close.

        Debian needs some praise too! Especially now that some KDE people imply Debian is generally slow to update. That doesn’t apply to GNOME!

        Latest GTK3 version got into unstable on GNOME 3.36.1 release day.
        https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/gtk+3.0

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 144Hz View Post
          Fedora already got some of the packages. Same with Debian.
          Buster: Package: gnome (1:3.30+1)
          Bullseye: Package: gnome (1:3.30+2)
          Sid: amd64 1:3.30+2

          You keep saying the same thing, and the updates keep not arriving.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by andyprough View Post

            Buster: Package: gnome (1:3.30+1)
            Bullseye: Package: gnome (1:3.30+2)
            Sid: amd64 1:3.30+2

            You keep saying the same thing, and the updates keep not arriving.
            You are pointing to a meta package.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by andyprough View Post

              Buster: Package: gnome (1:3.30+1)
              Bullseye: Package: gnome (1:3.30+2)
              Sid: amd64 1:3.30+2

              You keep saying the same thing, and the updates keep not arriving.
              gnome is a meta package NOT a real package. This version numbers don't mean anything...

              As of today Sid has a mixture of 3.34 and 3.36 components.

              Comment


              • #8
                andyprough Clicking a link is too difficult? Fear not, here’s the paste!


                -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Format: 1.8 Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2020 13:15:25 +0100 Source: gtk+3.0 Architecture: source Version: 3.24.16-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: medium Maintainer: Debian GNOME Maintainers <[email protected]> Changed-By: Simon McVittie <[email protected]> Closes: 953105 954584 Changes: gtk+3.0 (3.24.16-1) unstable; urgency=medium . * Team upload * New upstream release * Drop patches that came from upstream * d/p/supp-Use-a-single-suppressions-file-for-lib-lib64-and-mul.patch: Add patch to make valgrind suppressions match Debian libraries * Update forwarding status for some patches that were sent upstream * d/p/Don-t-test-default-constructed-GdkPixbuf-properties.patch: Drop patch. Build-depend on gdk-pixbuf 2.40 instead of working around a bug in older versions. * d/rules: Mark some reftests as allowed to fail. These reftests are sensitive to the build environment (exact versions of Pango, fonts etc.) and are disabled in upstream's CI. (Closes: #954584) * d/p/updateiconcache-Sort-list-of-entries.patch: Backport patch from GTK 4 to make the icon cache reproducible (Closes: #953105) * d/p/build-Generate-gdk.gresource.xml-in-sorted-order.patch: Sort GDK resources to improve reproducibility. The combination of this and fixing #953105 should hopefully make the package reliably reproducible. * d/README.source: Write down how to inspect reftest failures

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by George99 View Post

                  gnome is a meta package NOT a real package. This version numbers don't mean anything...

                  As of today Sid has a mixture of 3.34 and 3.36 components.
                  Makes sense. Ubuntu has to get it from somewhere.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm going to sound like one for those pompous "Arch + Sway" people, but that is what I have set up on my dual-boot right now (yes, I do run Windows as well!) I did another clean install last week as I was building up a lot of cruft playing around with things. Mostly I am learning and I keep learning. In regards to Gnome and Fedora and whatever else...

                    I wish Gnome well. There is a lot I like about it. But there are things that I just despise. I think with some good styling and nice icons and nice fonts, it could look a lot more polished. Just that top bar with the curves at each end, looks very amateur to me. Of course there is this:

                    https://extensions.gnome.org/extensi...aight-top-bar/

                    Why does Gnome install Avahi for me if I don't want it, all the V4L tools I don't need. I am not sure if this is still the case, but Cheese pulls in some of this stuff, but I don't own a webcam. And then all the Evolution underlying framework stuff, running some communication services I don't need. Sorry, the details have slipped past me, this was a couple/few years ago. Maybe things have changed.

                    There are other things. But I see the potential. As an example, when macOS 10.10 came out, it was super refreshing asthticly compared to ≤ 10.9, at least in my opinion. I don't like a lot about macOS and usability. But it looks nice in a lot of ways. Anyway, enough of my rant. I just see a lot of rough edges in Gnome, but I also see the potential. Whether or not that potential gets realized is another thing. I don't know personally, but I get a sense from others that that community may not always be open to constructive criticism. I may be wrong.

                    In regards to Fedora, I may eventually move to that for no other reason that I want my Linux boot to be a development machine. We run RHEL at work, and I run CentOS on a hosted VM for my personal stuff. It kind of makes sense to run Fedora to be in a similar ecosystem, just more up to date.

                    Anyway, just some thoughts.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X