Re: GNOME-2 transition: necessary?
<quote who="Christian Marillat">
> > Both of those are things that need to be addressed as soon as possible.
> > Replacing G1D components with G2D components piecemeal is foolish, and I
> > have no idea why Christian is taking this approach.
>
> Because gnome-terminal 2 is better than the 1.4 version
But they're entirely incompatible when it comes to configuration,
integration with each desktop, etc.
I'll say it again: Moving to G2D piecemeal is *worse* than not giving your
users the opportunity to choose, especially at this point in G2D's life
(when a lot of people would prefer to stick with 1.x).
The only sensible way of doing this is all-or-nothing, and because of that,
offering a choice to your users first.
Sure, the packages should upgrade seamlessly (I absolutely agree with that,
it's a fine goal), but that doesn't have to happen immediately. It should
happen when the software is ready for your users.
> and I can't maintains two sawfish versions.
Get someone else to contribute, I'm sure someone will pick up the previous
version.
> If I want to package two sawfishs, then I need to maintains two rep-gtk
> versions (0.15 and 0.16), who conflicts each other because sawfish always
> find the 0.15 version and the build for sawfish 2 will fail. Then for
> building sawfish for gtk 1.2 I need to remove sawfish 2.0 and rep-gtk 0.15
> package and vice versa, not really realistic.
Those issues can be fixed very easily (much like the recent versions of the
GTK+ 1.2.x family were), and you might even find upstream willing to take
the changes and release a new version of the old sawfish.
I strongly recommend that you guys come up with a migration strategy for the
entire GNOME 2 Desktop, rather than doing it piecemeal, without a strategy.
- Jeff
--
"Socks for the foot menu!" - Liam Quin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gtk-gnome-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: