Re: GNOME-2 transition: necessary?
On Sat, 29 Jun 2002 11:35:09 -0400
"Steve M. Robbins" <steven.robbins@videotron.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 01:34:04PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I just want to recommend reading Aaron Lehmann's post
> > "O: rep-xmms" on the debian-devel list. There, someone
> > seems to be really annoyed by our GNOME-2 transition
> > process.
>
> This raises the question: is a transition necessary?
>
> I think not. I'd rather have both GNOME1 and GNOME2 available from
> the debian archive. Doing so puts the choice of environment in the
> hands of individual system administrators, which IMHO is where it
> ought to be.
>
> It is true that a given package in debian usually follows upstream
> through new versions. But there are exceptions: apache, emacs, gcc,
> and even automake all have multiple variants in the archive. I guess
> the reason for supporting multiple variants is slightly different in
> each case. I guess the common theme is that forcing a single version
> into the archive would cause pain either to the archive itself
> (automake) or to a large number of users. I suggest that the GNOME
> 1->2 transition falls in the latter category.
>
> It would be no trick to support this with GNOME. At a basic level,
> all that is needed is for the program packages to have two versions,
> e.g. "gnome-terminal" and "gnome-terminal2". Libraries already do
> this, by policy.
>
> Whaddya say?
I agree with all you say. For the moment debian should have both
versions in unstable, and give admins the choice between which one they
want to have installed on their systems. Next, the transitions will be
done when gnome1.4 will no longer be updated by developpers. On this day
gnome2 will take the place of gnome1.4
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gtk-gnome-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: