Re: Gnome 2 summary 29/07/2002
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 18:06, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 23:00, Joe Drew wrote:
> > On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 16:55, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > I pushed file-roller2 2.0.0 to unstable (again). file-roller2 1.109 was
> > > supposed to hit unstable as well, it still didn't.
> >
> > Why does it have the *2 suffix in unstable?
>
> Because people are still using file-roller, the gnome1 package. And it's
> still supported upstream.
Point #1 isn't valid: people are still using gnome-panel 1.x too, but
that's only because it's the latest version in unstable/testing.
#2 is slightly more valid, though. Most of GNOME 1.4 is going to be
unmaintained, which is a big reason to get GNOME 2 into unstable.
What reason would someone have (other than "Doesn't want to have gnome 2
libraries on his computer", which I don't consider valid - GNOME 2 is
supplanting GNOME 1) to use file-roller v1?
--
Joe Drew <hoserhead@woot.net> <drew@debian.org>
"This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding." -- Bdale Garbee
Reply to: