Re: Gnome 2 summary 09/08/2002
On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 20:35, Joe Drew wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-08-09 at 19:55, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > For local binaries, well they'll
> > just have to deal with it and rebuild them.
>
> This is absolutely unacceptable and unprofessional. I'm rather upset
> that people are proposing to release a stable distribution that
> blatantly breaks user's locally-compiled binaries. I don't think there
> has ever been precedent for this, and it strikes me as being a
> colossally terrible idea.
Actually, this happens a lot. Maybe not in Debian, but other distros
for sure. Most of the time, if not changing a library under the user's
nose, it's more just not having the library at all, or providing a
totally different version that conflicts.
However, I still agree it would be better to maybe wait for gtk 2.1 or
somesuch, so that at least there won't be any disruption, whatsoever.
Then, on the other hand, I'm sick of only having either qt devel
libraries or gnome devel libraries in at one time..
>
> --
> Joe Drew <hoserhead@woot.net> <drew@debian.org>
>
> "This particular group of cats is mostly self-herding." -- Bdale Garbee
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gtk-gnome-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
Reply to: