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

Re: Gnome to be removed from debian?

On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Ben Collins wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 16, 1999 at 12:13:56AM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Ben Collins wrote:
> > > What we need is to not have infinite numbers of libgtk1.1.x libs in the
> > > distribution. Stick with libgtk1.1 and use shlibs to ensure things get
> > > recompiled against them. I would much rather have one lib and many
> > > programs that break on the next release than tons of libs _and_ still
> > > many broken programs as well as a mess on my system.
> >
> > Why can't libgtk just have a shlibs file that generates dependancies like:
> >
> > Depends: libgtk1.1 (>= current_version), libgtk1.1 (<< next_upstream_version)
> >
> > All this requires is guessing what next_upstream_version will be. It will
> > cause some unnecessary overly strict dependancies, but it will ensure no
> > packages ever break when you upgrade libgtk1.1.
> Yes, that was my original suggestion, but some seemed to think it
> wouldn't solve the problem. I fail to see how it wouldn't.

It would solve a problem.  However, it would disallow people from having
multiple versions of libgtk1.1 installed simultaneously, which they might
want to do for a variety of reasons (packages installed using different
versions, be they hand-compiled packages, old debian ones, debian ones
with a 'slow' maintainer, or completely hand-installed ones).

I am about to ask the list-masters to create debian-gtk-gnome.

|  Jelibean aka  | jules@jellybean.co.uk         |  6 Evelyn Rd	       |
|  Jules aka     | jules@debian.org              |  Richmond, Surrey   |
|  Julian Bean   | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk        |  TW9 2TF *UK*       |
|  War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left.             |
|  When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy.          |

Reply to: