Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 964977
gdm-control and gnome-panel-control require former gnome-panel package
Last modified: 2014-07-07 10:41:31 EDT
Description of problem:
From the F-19 Branched report:
gdm-control-3.5.0-11.20121001git782b28.fc19.x86_64 requires gnome-panel
gnome-panel-control-3.5.0-11.20121001git782b28.fc19.x86_64 requires gnome-panel
but gnome-panel is no longer available in F19 unfortunately.
Perhaps openbox could be patch to work instead with mate-panel?
Hm, did gnome break openbox again?
I personally have no interest in keeping the gnome support as it seems to break so often and I'm not a gnome/mate user, but if anyone would like to update it, please feel free to do it or send me the patches.
(In reply to Miroslav Lichvar from comment #1)
> Hm, did gnome break openbox again?
No, gnome-panel was removed from GNOME and our distribution.
> I personally have no interest in keeping the gnome support as it seems to
> break so often and I'm not a gnome/mate user, but if anyone would like to
> update it, please feel free to do it or send me the patches.
I'm not a GNOME/MATE user either, but I'll fix it.
Is there a temporary workaround for this?
(In reply to Ian Neal from comment #3)
> Is there a temporary workaround for this?
How is it affecting you?
Well workaround is to remove gdm-control and gnome-panel-control... :)
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #4)
> (In reply to Ian Neal from comment #3)
> > Is there a temporary workaround for this?
> How is it affecting you?
Well, I've never used gnome-panel-control but I have used gdm-control occasionally in the past (not for a while though).
I think I hit this bug, with :
yum install gnome-panel\*
Error: Package: gnome-panel-control-3.5.2-2.fc19.x86_64 (updates)
gnome-panel-control requires a package that not exist: gnome-panel .
Possibly a rebuild with a minor patch should fix this permanently. If Christoph doesn't fix it I will try to.
The reason this takes so long is that I don't know what to do.
gdm-control requiring gnome-panel is simply a copy & paste bug, should be gdm of course. Fixed in 3.5.2-3.fc21 which is just building for rawhide.
gnome-panel-control is harder. Dan, do you know it works with mate-panel or if we can make it work? The code looks straight forward, but I'm note sure if mate-panel supports it (of if gnome-panel actually worked at the point they forked).
Given that it works, we should probably rename it to mate-panel-control. What are we going to do about the openbox-gnome package then? Having it depend on mate-panel(-control) sounds wrong. Should we rename it, too?
I spent time on this last night, basically doing a find and replace of everything with "gnome" to "mate" and got pretty close. I'll try and work on it some more today and post the results.
Also need to talk to mate upstream about gnome-panel-control.. this is something we never forked.
(In reply to Dan Mashal from comment #10)
> I spent time on this last night, basically doing a find and replace of
> everything with "gnome" to "mate" and got pretty close. I'll try and work on
> it some more today and post the results.
Thanks, but no need to. It was indeed trivial, I have a working patch.
> Also need to talk to mate upstream about gnome-panel-control.. this is
> something we never forked.
It's not part of GNOME, so it was never forked.
Last question: Should I just rename all *gnome* stuff to *mate*? I can do this, but it requires some testing and I would appreciate your help.
(In reply to Christoph Wickert from comment #11)
> Last question: Should I just rename all *gnome* stuff to *mate*? I can do
> this, but it requires some testing and I would appreciate your help.
Yes please do and let me know. I will test. And for the desktop files you can use "X-Mate"
Any news on this?
I think I'll remove the gnome subpackages for now and if someone wants to convert them later to mate, please feel free.
Can we please not remove but properly obsolete them? I already have a patch ready, I am just waiting for feedback on the package name from Dan and the MATE folks.
Well, I think two Fedora releases including openbox subpackages with broken dependencies is more than enough. The removed subpackages are obsoleted by openbox and will be removed on upgrade if someone still have them installed.
If you can resurrect them for MATE, that's great. You can move the obsoleting lines there then.