Bug#154950: gnome1/gnome2 transition issues
Le Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 04:10:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait:
> Anyway, the point of setting up a separate area as Brendan has is that
> it gives you somewhere to mess around with things, without having to
> commit to maintaining them in any particular way, or to worry about
> people who aren't interested in helping you out getting irritated and
> filing bugs. Basically it seems to have the exact benefits of having
> "gnome2-*" packages, without the problem of having to rename them all
> at some later date.
>
> (Using experimental's possible too; although people can't just add it
> to their sources.list and get the new Gnome with a dist-upgrade, so it
> can be more awkward. The only loss compared to using unstable is that
> your packages won't get autobuilt on non-i386 until they are uploaded
> to unstable, but you don't get a choice about that anyway, and since
> your changes aren't arch-specific, that's unlikely to matter at all)
>
> If it were me, I'd setup a gnome2 repository, copied from Brendan's
> scripts, package bunches of Gnome2, and then see how much people really
> hate losing their settings and work on fixing it somewhat, or notice that
> people don't really care that much, and just move the packages straight
> into unstable.
This is exactly what I proposed as solution 3 in my initial mail to the
technical committee.
Disadvantages are :
- the BTS should not be used to report bugs because the staging area is
not something official
- some package uploaded to unstable may be built on a Gnome2
system and depend on a package of the staging area ... this is a
pretty common mistake when you have a big and popular staging area
- not autobuilt as you mentionned
Anyway, it may well be the best compromise ... a volunteer to maintain
the staging area if we go on with that solution ?
Cheer,
--
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
Reply to: