Re: Gnome2 for woody
On Mon, 2002-07-22 at 00:39, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> However, the introduction of Gnome2 is no reason to initiate a pogrom
> against Gnome1! Leave it be! It will be dropped from the archive
> when there is nobody left with the motivation to maintain it.
>
> I urge you to have some humility. People can legitimately make a
> different choice than you do. Let them!
Feel free! Just don't ask *us* to maintain GNOME 1 versions of our
packages. Nobody is saying "Don't you dare maintain GNOME 1 versions of
our packages" - just don't ask *us* to do it.
> To me, this type of sentiment betrays an intellectual laziness. Often
> the remark is trotted out in order to shout down an idea that requires
> a bit of imagination. In this instance, the idea is that we could
> actually have Gnome1 and Gnome2 versions of a given package in the
> archive at the same time
This is not intellectual laziness - it is actual laziness. Unless it's
necessary there's no good reason to have two versions of gnome packages
in unstable. (Obvious packages where it is necessary: gnome-panel
nautilus gnome-core) These should only be used as an intermediate step,
though.
Exercise: come up with a list of those packages which should have a *2
version in unstable, at least to begin with.
> > The problem is that then if there is a bug in a gnome1 package, and we
> > are using the same package names for gnome1/gnome2, then a bugfix for
> > gnome1 cannot be made.
>
> Yes!
Wait a second.
Say we have a package foo in unstable, version 1.1. Say foo 2.0 is
uploaded to unstable. If bugs are found in foo 1.1, why should it be
necessary to fix it? foo 2.0 is available now.
> I would turn the question around and ask you: Why do you want to make
> the decision that everyone using unstable should use Gnome2?
>
> Before you bring up the usual argument that it is "tradition" that
> there is one and only one version of a given piece of software in the
> archive at any moment in time, examine the archive a bit more
> carefully. You will find a number of exceptions: gcc, apache,
> autoconf, automake, and the linux kernel itself, to name a few.
How about the fact that gnome 1.4 is rapidly going to be unmaintained
upstream? I think we should just make a call on this, and the correct
one (i.e., the one every other distribution will be doing) seems to be
gnome 2.
> Are
> you all afraid of the suffix '2'?
Deathly.
--
Joe Drew <hoserhead@woot.net> <drew@debian.org>
"This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding." -- Bdale Garbee
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gtk-gnome-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: