On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 23:15, Joe Drew wrote: > 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? file-roller1 integrates in a Gnome1 desktop (themes, UI settings, etc.), file-roller2 doesn't. -- /Bastien Nocera http://hadess.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part