Re: gnome 1.x removal
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 01/14/08 19:20, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> (Dropping -release, which is not a discussion list, and Pierre, who is
> obviously subscribed to both.)
>
> On 15/01/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> This is not the right process for something like this. Instead, I
>> believe you should find out specifically which packages depend on
>> gnome 1.x, and offer those maintainers the option of taking over
>> maintenance.
>
> Although getting recursive rdepends is interesting, are you suggesting
> that the release team is supposed to take over the maintenance of
> one-could-say obsolete software?
I think he meant that maintainers of the obsolete sw that uses v1.2
should be the ones to maintain v1.2.
>> It is not a trivial task to port many programs to gnome 2; it took
>> gnucash a long time. Don't screw over other maintainers; make it easy
>> for them.
>
> xmms might be another example. *cough*
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian
because I hate vegetables!"
unknown
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHjBYiS9HxQb37XmcRAk2OAKCRxUS0jCmMBMyplYHT4iy5dJZ0dwCgsQrH
hFC0Cti7tQbsuoQ/K+Bu9dY=
=68wv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: