Hello,
On Sun, Jul 21, 2002 at 11:22:08AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The current state of affairs, however, has two unfortunate properties:
>
> 1) There are two different ways to configure the same variables, one
> for Gnome 1 programs; one for Gnome 2 programs. Since Christian
> Marillat has elected not to maintain the old gnome 1 versions of
> such packages as gnome-terminal, a user now MUST use a mix of gnome
> 1 and gnome 2 things, and therefore encounters an inconsistent
> configuration scheme. This is a bug.
>
> 2) The gnome 2 packages do not automatically read old user
> configurations, and therefore when one replaces (say) the gnome 1
> version of gnome-terminal with the gnome 2 version, all user
> customizations are lost. This is a violation of Debian policy, and
> a bug.
>
> And, the more serious problem:
> [...]
There seems to no plan for a GNOME-2 transition.
Some positions are
1) Jeff Waugh (one of the GNOME upstream people)
advises us, that we will need both GNOME-1.4 and GNOME-2
in parallel in the archive for some time.
See, for example,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-gtk-gnome/2002/debian-gtk-gnome-200206/msg00293.html
So our users could choose when they want to switch to GNOME-2.
2) Some people want to keep the GNOME-2 packages in experimental
and the GNOME-1.4 packages in unstable, both under the same
package name. I guess the idea is to rush them into unstable
all at once. One argument for this is to avoid archive bloat.
See, for example,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-gtk-gnome/2002/debian-gtk-gnome-200207/msg00284.html
3) I don't understand Christian Marillats transition strategy,
but he introduced some GNOME-2 pacakges into unstable, replacing
the corresponding GNOME-1.4 packages. See, for example,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-gtk-gnome/2002/debian-gtk-gnome-200207/msg00081.html
So there is no plan. But I think we really should have one. Strategy
1 may be unnecessary work for the ftp masters and may bloat the
archive. Possibility 2 may be a pain for our users. And I don't
understand the possible advantages of 3. If every GNOME package
maintainer decides for a way on his own, the mess will become even
worse.
I was thinking, maybe the technical committee could advise us here?
Would this be possible? Is this in the area of responsibility of the
technical committee? We clearly need a plan, and we seem not to be
able to make one on our own.
Jochen
--
Omm
(0)-(0)
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/privat.html
Attachment:
pgpqZn_B4VoHt.pgp
Description: PGP signature