Re: ITP gnome-applets
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 04:19:51PM +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote:
> Well, I think that best sollution would be, that somebody at helix
> should become official developer and join Gnome packaging team or
> overtake maintainership of gnome packages completely (if current
> maintainers would agree.)
This has been discussed, and I had expressed interest in doing
that. Unfortunately, I am unable to do that at this time. I'm
currently working on some infrastructure here that will hopefully make
it possible, but I can't make any promises. :/
> But consider that Debian made Gnome packages first and hence created
> de facto standard in packaging Gnome for Debian, so it is at least
> good idea for Helix to follow this developement line.
Exactly. It is my goal to produce a set of packages that fits in
seamlessly with the existing Debian GNOME setup. If changes are made
that will affect the dependencies on my end, like splitting or merging
packages, I will follow Debian's lead with my packages.
> This doesn't mean that this can't be
> changed, but it should be changed after discussion with current
> maintainers (discussion on debian-devel list is ok, I think).
> What I was wanted to say was, that we should try to resist changes
> which come from "commercial" area (and duplicating work of Debian
> developers.) ((I am not saying that Helix is trying to do this!))
I agree fully. :)
I happen to work for a commercial entity duplicating some of Debian's
work, but that doesn't mean that I want Debian to change because of
us. I care about Debian a lot, and things work perfectly well on the
Debian end without commercial support or pressure.
> Consider this imaginary scenario: Helix splits gnome-applets into
> several small packages and Debian would change his packaging even
> that people (in this list) would think that this is evil. We should
> be open to new (good) ideas, but we should not make bad changes,
> just because Helix has more uptodate packages.
>From the Helix side, this will not happen. I consider Debian's
packages to be the canonical source for mine.
> (Apologies to Helix, you were just example company in this mail,
> and this should be considered as my global view over similar cases.)
No offense taken. It is good to discuss these points.
Peter
Reply to: