Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian
Andreas Tille <tillea <at> rki.de> writes:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Removing the package from Debian will not affect current users that
> > much,
> While I perfectly agree that there are replacements for xmms that at
> first view look like a new version (for instnce audacious) many user
> might have links form their desktops or other hooks that just call
> /usr/bin/xmms. So this might affect a lot of users and especially
> those users that have no idea how to cope with a missing xmms in their
> PATH. IMHO the only way to fix this is to provide a transitional
> package that for instance depends from audacious (or other clones),
> provides xmms and conflict with older xmms versions and install a
> symlink to the replacement.
We are not an XMMS clone. Would you like us to remove the Winamp2 UI to drive
this point further? If this nonsense keeps happening, it's exactly what we will
Architecturally, Audacious is much different than XMMS, it just sorta looks like
XMMS, which I think sends the wrong message, but whatever. The fact is that we
do not consider ourselves to be an XMMS clone or an XMMS replacement, and you
should strongly consider that before removing XMMS and providing a transitive
upgrade path to audacious.
I'm not asking much, just some sort of notification telling users that the
"replacement" they are installing is not really a replacement to XMMS, and as
such some "features" are implemented in a drastically different way.
> I think xmms is to wide spread as that we just could wild guess how
> many users are affected and how they could cope with this.
Somebody will just maintain their own repo with gtk1.2 and xmms if it's
required. This already happens in gentoo.