Re: Gnome to be removed from debian?
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Havoc Pennington wrote:
>
> On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Adam Heath wrote:
> >
> > The upstream gnome developers aren't bumping the soname. How else do you
> > explain how dpkg can say all dependencies are filled, yet a gnome app
> > segfaults?
This isn't me. I hardly run x. I don't use gnome. Muggles on irc updated
his gnome to work with gnome-apt, and the rest of his gnome progs failed.
> That could be -
> * Mistakes in the upstream tarball for any of the almost 30 libraries
> involved - submit a bug report
> * Packaging mistakes in any of those libraries
> * Crufty headers on the machine where the app was compiled
> * The app is just broken - bug report.
> * The library is just broken - bug report.
> * You have old cruft on your machine.
> * etc., ad infinitum.
>
> Submit a bug report. Or wait for 1.0.
This is not a problem that a debian developer has. This is an end-user
problem. They come into irc, saying that such and such gnome prog doesn't
work, but apt says everything is fine. This shouldn't even be a prob. The
library that such and such program used, should not have been replaced with a
incompatible library with the same soname. And to have the debian packager of
gnome artificialy inflate the soname isn't a sane way to handle it.
> I'm sorry but it is simply not acceptable to gripe about bugs in alpha
> software. Especially *free* alpha software. Reporting them is fine,
> griping is not.
Alpha software he says. Just one more reason not to include it. I can live
with pkging beta software. But not alpha.
Adam
Reply to: