Re: Gnome 2 summary 29/07/2002
On Tue, 2002-07-30 at 18:55, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> It's nothing to do with the purpose of 'unstable' - it's really basic, down
> to Earth, "is this a benefit to users?" stuff. Replacing any/every GNOME 1.x
> component with it's 2.x version, at this stage, is *NOT* a benefit to Real
> Users. It's a pretty significant pain in the arse, if anything.
Jeff,
We don't plan on releasing any version of GNOME 2 to users until we're
damned sure it's ready. GNOME 1 will remain in testing, and if for some
reason GNOME 2 isn't ready by the time sarge releases, it'll stay there.
We can upgrade packages in testing via sarge-proposed-updates without
disturbing the state of unstable, too.
The problem is that it's impossible to get good testing on upgrades
(from GNOME 1 to GNOME 2) until it's in unstable, because it's difficult
for users to install stuff from experimental. Up to this point we've
been saying "deal with it," but our opinion as maintainers seems to
generally be "GNOME 2 in unstable."
(The only part I'm a bit concerned with is that gnome-utils 2.0 doesn't
appear to contain gtt, which has a number of users in Debian. I'm
uncomfortable uploading a new version of gnome-utils to unstable (once
Christian uploads the prerequisites) if it's going to remove a program
users use. What happened?)
--
Joe Drew <hoserhead@woot.net> <drew@debian.org>
"This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding." -- Bdale Garbee
Reply to: