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

Re: Christian Marillat, once again


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,


   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,


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,


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

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.


Attachment: pgpS0Ybf8SZFO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: