Re: do not delete gnome-1
I do not read debian-gtk-gnome; please keep me in the CC list on
replies.
Loïc Minier <lool+debian@via.ecp.fr> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> > And what if they never do the switch? We can't keep GNOME 1 forever.
>> If you cannot maintain them any longer, then you should orphan them.
>> This is always appropriate. In fact, it's necessary. When you cannot
>> maintain or do not wish to maintain a package, orphan it.
>
> I understand that I can orphan packages. GNOME 1 was superseded by
> GNOME 2, and GNOME 2 provides similar functionality, replacing GNOME 1.
> GNOME 1 was kept for a period of _transition_ from GNOME 1 to GNOME 2.
> When transitions are over, packages are removed. The GNOME transition
> is not eternal.
But the gnome-1 transition is not over until the programs which use
gnome-1 are transitioned.
KDE also provides a similar functionality to gnome-1. openoffice.org
provids a "similar functionality" to gnu emacs. By itself, those
words mean almost nothing.
> I'm concerned for the project as a whole, I'm concerned with the number
> of packages in Debian, the number of packages to release, upgrade
> paths, the number of packages to maintain at the security level, the
> size of the archive, the valuable time of the QA group. Yes, I
> understood you're in the QA group.
> Don't encourage people every old cruft to the QA group, it means more
> cruft stays in Debian. It is a per package decision.
I'm not encouraging that. I'm saying dammit, gnucash *needs* these
packages, as do a few other apps, and while *you* might not want to do
maintenance any longer on the libraries in question, that does *not*
mean it's yet time to drop them.
> I don't care how slow gnucash development is. If 10000 packages made
> the switch from GNOME 1 to GNOME 2 _except_ gnucash, then to the hell
> with it. You're saying I'm insensible with the gnucash developers and
> their pace of development, why don't you simply say I'm the one putting
> the knife under gnucash's throat and I can decide life or death of a
> project?
Gnucash is the single most complex gnome-1 program there is. Deal
with it. It takes time and work.
If you are saying "let's drop it now!" then you *are* trying to put
the knife under gnucash's throat.
> Ask yourself this: would people in the QA team have more time to
> package RFPs if they didn't have to handle GNOME 1? Do you have any
> measure for the usefulness of your time? And the QA team's time as a
> whole? Of course, you do what you want with _your_ time, but shared
> project resource are valuable, and my priority is our users as a whole,
> not just the GNOME 1 users.
Yes dammit, and you are *not* the decider of Debian's priorities.
> It's a big chunk of software, not some useful little things that you
> keep to do users a favor, it needs real consideration before acting.
So STOP ACTING so hastily. And conduct the discussion in public, on
debian-devel.
> Do you have any list of GNOME 1 packages which might be completely
> removed without hurting anyone? Do you have a list of packages
> depending on some GNOME 1 packages? Do you have popcon statistics on
> finance managers? Is it possible for users to export/import their data
> from gnucash to other finance managers?
No. A much better strategy is to orphan them all.
You want to be the dictator of all things gnome-related. But you
don't get to be. Debian does not need dictators. There is no
gnome-dictator.
All you get to do is maintain packages, and when you don't want to any
more, orphan them. You do *NOT* get to tell me which packages I
should be allowed to maintain.
Thomas
Reply to: