On jeu., 2010-11-11 at 13:27 +0000, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:01:39AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote: > > I'm not sure the size is relevant for the freeze exception (though it > > might be for inclusion in the first CD), but in any case if the release > > team thinks it's a bad idea, it can be changed. > > The release time might take issue, because instead of asking for a freeze > exception in order to change the look and feel of the default desktops, we'd be > asking for a freeze exception to do that, and also package up three non-default > themes, which is an entirely different thing. Well, it's basically the same thing. > > In the mean time, I think it's a bad idea, because it forces all desktop users > to install nearly half a dozen themes. I think we really have to step back and > acknowledge that we *are* in freeze, we should take the freeze rules seriously, > squeeze should be released as soon as possible, and these themes will be > available in the next release (and in squeeze via backports). Yes agreed, it's just that adding few jpegs in a package shouldn't really mess with anything. > > > We can remove the previous artwork (at least Etch one) too to gain size, > > though that means dealing with the alternatives removal. > > Because we can't package the existing theme in a new package for squeeze, > this would mean that anyone upgrading to squeeze who has chosen to have > the old theme will have it ripped away from underneath them. So I think we > have to leave the old theme in for squeeze, and move it into an external > package for squeeze+1 (or drop it, if nobody wants to maintain it). Well, we could add a NEWS entry saying that etch theme will be gone and they should save it somewhere if they want to keep it. All in all, it's again just a wallpaper and it should be fairly easy to find it elsewhere. I'm don't really have a strong opinion on this anyway. Cheers, -- Yves-Alexis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part