Re: Two versions of pan in etch?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Søren Boll Overgaard wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Pan[0] is currently undergoing a major rewrite, and being the
> maintainer, I am currently considering what version of pan to
> include in etch. This mail[1] from one of the pan mailing lists
> sums up the situation quite nicely.
>
> Essentially, what it boils down to is this: Would it be prudent
> to include two separate versions of pan in etch (perhaps named
> pan and pan2)? The rewrite has been in Debian experimental for
> some time now, and it has definite advantages over the old one,
> whereas the old one has stability and feature completeness going
> for it.
>
> A few google searches didn't yield any obvious precedents that I
> could spot, so I would appreciate your input.
As a pan user, if maintaining pan 0.14 is easy then I'd think it
would be a good idea.
AS LONG AS they can be installed *together*, so that one can test
pan 0.1xx while being able to fall back to the usable pan 0.14.
That seems like it would be lots of work on your part, and if so,
pan 0.14 still "needs" to be in Etch.
Personally, I don't think I'll *want* to move to pan 1.x, since it
uses the GTK file picker, and the 0.14 file picker is *really*
*useful* for newsgroups.
> [0] http://pan.rebelbase.com/ [1]
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/pan-users/2006-07/msg00158.html
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEy4v2S9HxQb37XmcRAgIBAKCXNje/nlefSqzos6qjM4dCQmPHSwCgiTxt
zpqwKRbwcTuEpbvqP5ctZDc=
=PZXl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: