Re: Bug#154950: Gnome 2 transition
Le Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 10:40:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns écrivait:
> And, more particularly, there aren't any configuration upgrade scripts yet.
And there's no evidence that we'll have something provided by the
upstream developers one day.
> Christian mentioned a couple of times in the thread that he'd been
> working on something to that effect, what actually happened?
According to one of hist las mail,
http://lists.debian.org/debian-gtk-gnome/2002/debian-gtk-gnome-200207/msg00402.html
he wrote 3 conversion scripts for gnome-terminal, gnome-session and
gnome-panel.
But as I explained, those scripts are not meant to be automatically
launched. They are convenience scripts provided to the users (in
particular for administrators who may want to upgrade the configuration
of all their users ?).
> things. In particular, in this circumstance, you absolutely should *not*
> expect to be able to continue maintaining Gnome 1.4 in sarge, except
> for security updates. Not even with sarge-proposed-updates.
Duh, looks like you and neuro have not the same acceptation of
testing-proposed-updates. :-)
Anyway, for me it doesn't matter. I don't expect any major Gnome 1.4
update that we'd have to follow. And since Gnome2 will be ready by the
time sarge releases, the potential non-update of Gnome 1.4 in sarge is
largely a non-problem for me.
> > Work out Gnome 2 in a separate staging area (without any "2" suffix), and
> > move it to unstable one day
>
> This is what's happening with perl, see
> http://ftp-master.debian.org/~bod/perl/
Yes but as soon as all the modules are collected they are moved into
unstable. And NMU will be done for packages not updated in time.
Here, people don't want Gnome 2 to go in unstable if it replaces Gnome
1.4.
> The "problem" above should've specified that. AIUI, everyone believes
> Gnome2 will be ready for sarge and sid at the point when an upgrade from
> 1.4 to 2.0 preserves most of the configs of all the users on the machine.
There's no evidence that this may automatically happen one day.
> > That means that someone will have to handle that staging area. It also
> > means that G2D will be less tested on unpopular architectures.
>
> That's what unstable's for, really.
Yeah, that's why I want to upload to unstable. :-)
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com
Reply to: