Package Details: gnome-terminal-fedora 3.26.2-1

Git Clone URL: (read-only)
Package Base: gnome-terminal-fedora
Description: The GNOME Terminal Emulator with Fedora patches
Upstream URL:
Keywords: dark gnome notifications notify patched terminal transparency transparent
Licenses: GPL
Groups: gnome
Conflicts: gnome-terminal
Provides: gnome-terminal=3.26.2
Submitter: BerelTarMaciltur
Maintainer: dsboger
Last Packager: dsboger
Votes: 55
Popularity: 0.015966
First Submitted: 2015-03-29 22:28
Last Updated: 2018-02-20 14:51

Required by (8)

Sources (4)

Pinned Comments

SunRed commented on 2016-04-13 18:16

For those that are just looking for a transparency mode in gnome-terminal and don't need the notification feature I would like to refer those to gnome-terminal-transparency by hoschi.
(Edit) Link:

Latest Comments

dsboger commented on 2018-02-20 14:51

@purejava should be fixed now. Thanks for reporting!

purejava commented on 2018-02-20 13:28

Package fails with 403 on downloading _fpatchfile1: curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 403 Forbidden

==> FEHLER: Fehler beim Download von

dsboger commented on 2017-09-19 14:13

@hpstg I've tested just now and both vte3-notification and gnome-terminal-fedora built without issues. Can you describe in more detail what problem you faced? What step failed? What error messages were displayed? Thanks for reporting!

hpstg commented on 2017-09-19 13:06

Unfortunatelly the package won't build because vte3 won't pass a check.

hoschi commented on 2017-04-27 09:37

That's fine, I also don't see a big issue. Probably the developers or officall maintainers of Archlinux change their mind and explicitly use base or base-devel as 'dependes' or 'makedepends'.

dsboger commented on 2017-04-27 02:34

@hoschi @SunRed I've read some debate on that topic. True, we may assume base-devel is installed, but then why not make it explicit in, say, pacman? Relying on common assumption and a wiki page seems a brittle foundation to me, specially considering we have a dependency resolution mechanism in place, and SunRed tasted one of its shortcomings. My opinion is not strong, since it is a small matter, but I have yet to see a good reason for omitting deps, beyond "we assume..." or "it is in the wiki". So... I'll leave it as it is, because inertia.

SunRed commented on 2017-04-27 00:54

Curiously enough I did not have pkg-config installed anymore although I do have the base-devel group installed of course. Must've been removed with another package I uninstalled. I did not think about it being a devel package when posting this here. Sorry, my fault then :)

hoschi commented on 2017-04-26 15:22

Hello dsboger!

I can't gurantee that, but I think you don't need to include 'pkg-config'. Probably I should have shared my findings earlier also here[1]. Basically wiki says "no packages from base-devel" and likely also not "base-devel" as group :)

[1] -> see my answer :)

SunRed commented on 2017-04-26 10:22

Package fails build process without pkg-config package. Would be nice if you add it to makedepends.

dsboger commented on 2017-03-01 19:11

Fixed. Thanks for reporting!

All comments