Re: GTK+ libraries 2.2 are released
On Tue, 24 Dec 2002, Akira TAGOH wrote:
> From: Akira TAGOH <tagoh@debian.org>
> Subject: Re: GTK+ libraries 2.2 are released
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 23 Dec 2002 23:02:32 +0100 (CET),
> >>>>> "chipzz" == Chipzz <chipzz@ULYSSIS.Org> wrote:
>
> chipzz> Please DON'T. Put it in a seperate staging area. Do you really want the
> chipzz> same misery as with gnome 2.0? People screwing their system because they
> chipzz> pulled in a broken pam and stuff like that?
>
> Why don't you install a GTK+ 2.2 packages individually or
> don't you want to wait an installation about a month.
*Sigh* While _I_ am not as stupid as to screw my system up, other people
who don't know apt very good just do apt-get dist-upgrade with experimen-
tal in their sources.list. (With a lot of bad consequences).
> chipzz> I thought we agreed to use a seperate staging area for Gnome 2.2??
>
> GNOME 2.2 is not released yet.
If you really want to be nitpicking instead of being constructive,
s/Gnome 2.2/Gnome 2.2 and the development leading up to it including
Gnome 2.1.x/.
Which still doesn't answer my question: after the misery with Gnome 2.0
in unstable/experimental, who is going to set up a staging area for Gno-
me 2.1.x/Gnome 2.2? Or are all the developers just going to upload in
unstable or experimental (with all sorts of consequences). And is this
staging area needed for Gtk+ 2.2? Does the change of use from Xft1 to
Xft2 break anything?
Gnome 2.2 is getting closer, and I think it's a very bad idea to start
uploading libs to unstable/experimental without a strategy.
> --
Your sigdashes are still broken :P
> Akira TAGOH : tagoh@gnome.gr.jp / Japan GNOME Users Group
> at@gclab.org : tagoh@gnome-db.org / GNOME-DB Project
> : tagoh@redhat.com / Red Hat, Inc.
> : tagoh@debian.org / Debian Project
Regards,
Chipzz AKA
Jan Van Buggenhout
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead - It just smells funny
Chipzz@ULYSSIS.Org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: