[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GDM 2.4 in sid

On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 17:54, Ryan Murray wrote:

> None of which are RC.  None of which give you a reason to hijack the package.

I agree, hijacking is just bad.

> Why don't we stop worrying about what to call things (which benefits
> no one), and worry about RC FTBFS packages in the gnome2 dep chain.
> That benefits everyone.  

While we're Debian, and we do (and should) care about a variety of
architectures, I remember Culus quoting statistics about the mirror
usage which implied that something like 97% of our userbase downloaded
i386 packages.  So the FTBFS bugs on say mips are important, yes...but
not having a canonical GDM 2.4 package available to our entire developer
and user base affects a much, much greater proportion of people.  

Overall, it's just disappointing that we've spent far more time
discussing this issue than it would take to simply upload a new package
and end it.  Not to mention all the time various people have spent
working on local package versions.

In reality, not uploading GDM 2.4 isn't going to make people fix the
kind of tricky libtool and auto{conf,make} issues that appear to be
holding up mips or whatever any faster.  The number of people who can
fix those issues is very small, and probably doesn't intersect much if
at all with the people who want GDM 2.4.

If you want to draw attention to the toolchain issues in various GNOME
packages, a much better way to accomplish this is to discuss with
upstream, post to gnome-devel, and get bugs filed in bugzilla.  Not
uploading GDM isn't going to magically make this stuff happen.

Reply to: