[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#154950: Gnome 2 transition

Chris Waters's message implied that the argument was not really about
whether Gnome2 should go into unstable, but whether it should take
over the old package names.

In the past we've used the same package names when it really only
makes sense, as a desirable goal, to have one version installed.
Typically this involves either such incompatibility that having both
on the system is nearly impossible, or such similarity that it's

We should only approve the release of Gnome2 into stable without the
`2' suffix if we're sure, now, that we will definitely only want to
release one set of Gnome packages, with no choices for end-users and
with only having choices for sysadmins by using different
distributions and possibly even manual package fetching.

But obviously that's not true.

Indeed, even if we choose to only keep Gnome2 in unstable or release
only Gnome2 in sarge, it still makes sense for individual sysadmins to
install the Gnome2 from unstable alongside the Gnome1 from stable,
regardless of what the release manager or package maintainers think.

So it seems to me that it's completely clear that the Gnome2 packages
ought to keep the `2' suffix.

Now, Raphael Hertzog writes in his initial referral:
> * Solution two :
> Upload some Gnome2 packages in unstable with a new name (adding a "2"
> suffix) so that unstable users can choose to install Gnome 2 or Gnome
> 1.4. Ask the user to test *2 packages. Rename them later and move them
> to sarge.

This is the only solution he offers which gives a `2' suffix at all.
But, it assumes that the packages have to be renamed before they can
go in sarge.  Why can't the Gnome2 packages keep the `2' suffix
forever ?

Indeed, as Steve M. Robbins writes:
> There's one aspect of this debate given little attention in
> submissions to the bug report:  It is entirely possible that both 
> Gnome 1 and Gnome 2 are desirable in the next Debian release.
> [The] release manager may wish to have the flexibility of
> releasing both Gnome desktops.  Raphael's "solution two" is the
> only one that allows this flexibility.

It seems that this will be unlikely because of the size of Gnome and
the difficulty of maintaining two version.  But, more to the point,
the release manager may wish to choose at a late stage whether to go
with Gnome1 or 2, depending on available information and quality.
Prejudging that issue now is a mistake.

Also, I want to respond to this:
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 10:55:28AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Of course, during the Gnome2 switch, some apps will continue to work
> with 1.4 until they are ported. That means that we won't have a
> fully consistent Gnome2 desktop for several months but that's how
> things are going on. Putting no incentive on porting them to Gnome2 is
> not going to help that move ...

I am very strongly opposed to any attempt to provide `incentives' for
maintainers to do work in this way.  Penalising our users, or making
life difficult for ourselves, in order to `encourage' people to do
something, is a very bad idea in a volunteer organisation.  If
something isn't being done that you want done, go and do it.  Don't
break things in an effort to force the issue.

So, I'm very strongly leaning towards saying that Gnome2 should go in
unstable, as soon as uploads are ready, with a `2' suffix which it
should keep indefinitely.  Gnome1 should remain in unstable as long
as people are willing to maintain it there.  The release manager
should decide whether Gnome1, Gnome2 or both should go into testing
and eventually sarge.

I'll write this up as a draft resolution in my next mail.

(Thanks to everyone for their contributions.)


Reply to: