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

Re: debian mate

Le mardi 20 novembre 2012 à 18:37 +0100, Michael Schmitt a écrit : 
> > One of the biggest problems with MATE so far is that it currently
> > depends on libraries and other things that have been deprecated and
> > removed in Debian and should not be reintroduced to Debian.
> Can we agree on something more friendly like "it would be not optimal to 
> reintroduce these packages"? Or at least elaborate a bit why they should 
> not be re-introduced. It would not be the first time something like that 
> happened in Debian.

Because nobody knows anymore how to maintain libraries as complex as
bonobo, for example. And I’m pretty sure the MATE developers don’t have
the expertise.

Even worse, they forked stuff like GConf using sed to rename it
mateconf, while GConf is still available in a much more modern version
in wheezy, 100% binary-compatible while being ported to D-Bus.

I don’t think we should allow libraries from clueless developers to be
introduced into the archive.

> > Furthermore, work has to be done to make sure MATE co-installs
> > seamlessly with anything from GNOME which isn't that trivial.
> Apparently it is easy enough, as they got that already done months ago. 
> At least I run MATE on many sid-boxes with Gnome3 co-installed and no 
> issues apart from that damn mime-types-thingy brokenness when one has 
> more than one DE installed.

Maybe you can try to understand how XDG mime works. But maybe this is
too much to ask to people who forked libraries that are still available.

 .''`.      Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'

Reply to: