On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 00:15, Joe Drew wrote: > 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?) The upstream maintainer did absolutely nothing to port it, and because the people actually doing the gnome-utils port (myself at first, then Glynn and Kevin) weren't interested in the application, it wasn't ported. I think that gtt will be maintained outside gnome-utils now. You'd have to ask Linas for more infos. -- /Bastien Nocera http://hadess.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part