GNOME Shell has been removed from the repositories?

[Bilal Akhtar]

Hi Jo-Erland,

This was discussed in the below bug:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-shell/+bug/690045

GNOME shell depends on several GNOME 3 libraries, most of which haven't
(yet) made their way into Ubuntu. This will be fixed very soon when
packages from the Ubuntu GNOME 3 ppa will be uploaded to Natty. After
that only we'll re-add GNOME shell into the archive.

Bilal Akhtar.

On 02/19/2011 07:52 AM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote:
> I've noticed that gnome-shell is not provided in the repositories for
> Natty. It used to be available in universe, from Karmic to Maverick.
> Why is this no longer the case?
> 
> I strongly believe that GNOME Shell should be available in the
> repositories, and preferably in main. There is already too much talk
> about Ubuntu moving away from GNOME. Removing gnome-shell from the
> repositories will encourage that misconception. I personally remain
> somewhat sceptical about both Unity and GNOME Shell, but I loudly
> applaud the efforts of both projects to innovate and modernize the
> desktop. I also think both projects show great promise, and I'm really
> looking forward to see how they progress as they mature and are
> exposed to a greater audience.
> 
> And I am a little concerned that by both switching to use Unity by
> default and removing the main competitor -- GNOME Shell -- from the
> repositories, it may seem like Ubuntu is using its power as the most
> popular distro to eliminate competition. You will get Unity for free,
> it will be installed and used by default. GNOME Shell, on the other
> hand... You'll need to search the web, try to find a good PPA, add the
> repository and then install it -- if you're really that interested. I
> am really hesitant to mention the comparison that automatically
> springs to my mind: Microsoft killed Netscape by providing Internet
> Explorer for free and, more importantly, installing it by default. No
> doubt, it's quite an efficient means of ridding oneself of
> competition, but it really doesn't seem to be in the spirit of Ubuntu.
> 
> I don't want to come across as accusing anyone of doing that. But I am
> concerned that's the way people will interpret it and that it'll help
> fuel tribalism. I strongly believe that the competition between GNOME
> Shell and Unity will bring out the best in both of them, but that will
> require both of them to be exposed to as vast an audience as possible.
> I'm not saying that GNOME Shell should be promoted or installed by
> default, only that it should be available from the repositories, at
> the very least in universe. I think that by promoting it to main, that
> would send a strong signal that Canonical and Ubuntu are not in
> conflict with GNOME. Also, if people are able to easily try GNOME
> Shell, then if people do stick with it, developers of Unity has a much
> better chance of learning why they do so, which will enable them to
> improve. The same would be true for GNOME Shell, of course: if people
> try it and chooses to use Unity instead, then they will have the
> opportunity to learn. The question, therefore, is "is Ubuntu going to
> enable the community around it to be able to improve?". These are the
> important things in the free software community, and if Ubuntu can do
> that, then it will have done something important, that will be
> appreciated... :)
> 
> In summary: The current situation makes Unity a symbol of conflict and
> an excuse for tribalism, which is as ironic as it is sad. The best
> solution is to promote it to main.
> 
> Thanks for reading,
> 
> Jo-Erlend Schinstad
> 


-- 
Bilal Akhtar - Ubuntu Developer <bilalakhtar at ubuntu.com>
IRC nick: cdbs

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-desktop/attachments/20110219/4b103527/attachment.pgp>