Re: Rapidly evolving end-user apps (Was: chromium not in Squeeze: a bit of communication needed?)
- To: email@example.com
- Cc: Debian Developers <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Rapidly evolving end-user apps (Was: chromium not in Squeeze: a bit of communication needed?)
- From: Thomas Goirand <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 01:33:49 +0800
- Message-id: <[🔎] 4C891A7D.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20100909100056.GA9346@upsilon.cc>
- References: <20100908114849.GA7986@upsilon.cc> <20100908132229.GF5918@patate.is-a-geek.org> <20100908170829.GA22898@inutil.org> <20100909100056.GA9346@upsilon.cc>
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> PS regarding the other part of this thread about how to support, via
> backports, what I would call "rapidly evolving end-user apps", it is
> surely a worthwhile discussion, more general than Chromium. I believe
> it would be worth to have it elsewhere (e.g. -devel), possibly once
> the needed feature requests (e.g. on APT) have been implemented. Note
> that unless there is a chance to get those features into Squeeze,
> it's probably a too-late-coming discussion.
I'm jumping in.
I was quite surprised to see that the proposed solution was to put
Chromium in backports rather than in volatile. I don't really mind, as
long as it's supported somehow, but then, what's the point of volatile?
Also, I have found that Pidgin would really have been a valid candidate
for volatile: after few months, Yahoo, MSN and other networks are
changing, and it becomes simply impossible to log into these networks
unless you upgrade Pidgin (or some of its protocol purple libs) to a
higher upstream version.
Wouldn't it make sense to have Desktop apps like these (I suppose there
are other examples, like maybe the flashplugin-installer package in
non-free) sit in volatile?
Just my 2 cents idea,
DISCLAIMER: I'm not willing to work on Desktop applications, this isn't
my field, I have enough work on server packages.