On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 16:02, Robert McQueen wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 09:18:17PM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > That, indeed, is the crux of the argument. We don't want to put stuff > > without *2 in unstable because it means no one has an option whilst we > > perfect the migration stuff. That's why we mostly settled on maintaining it > > all outside unstable during the meeting, despite the inefficiencies. > > I agree with Joey Hess here. If people wanted an option, they'd run > stable, testing, or just pay attention to what apt was upgrading. I know > I do. If you run unstable you have to be prepared to do that. Having *2 > is ugly and hard to undo without stub packages other hideosities. If > we're going to remove GNOME 1,4 desktop before release, then we should > just remove the damn thing, put in the new versions, and then try and > smooth the upgrade path. Can someone rubber stamp this and juse let us > get on with it? > I'm in complete agreement with Rob on this one. -2 packages are a mess waiting to happen and there are only a few cases where there use is legitimate, gtk2-engines which can happily coexist with gtk-engines is the main one which comes to mind. Having -2 packages in experimental or unstable is going to create a hideous mess for the future with lots of package bloat to undo the mistakes. The current inconsistent mess is enough without adopting this route. My opinion is that the gnome2 desktop components (not the libraries) should only have been installed into experimental with only the libraries in unstable, as these can coexist. The GNOME2 desktop components were never intented to coexist with GNOME, its an all or nothing upgrade. Hence the current drip, drip feed into unstable is wrong. However a significant problem is that some GNOME packages in unstable have been replaced with GNOME2 versions. Which as far as i understand has left sarge lacking in a gnome-terminal binary as its compilation was removed from one package so that it could be implemented as a seperate package so that the GNOME2 version could be used. However we now have a situation where no forward planning was undertaken towards a transition. The committee needs to decide which approach to take based on the current situation within sid and experimental. Tough call, but thats why you're involved =) Regards, Rob -- Rob 'robster' Bradford Founder: http://www.debianplanet.org/ Developer: http://www.debian.org/ Monkey with keyboard: http://www.robster.org.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part