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

Re: Gnome 2.4 in sid

John wrote:

So to recap the points made:

- The glibc/gcc problem in testing isn't going to be resolved quickly.
- Even after this it will take a lot to get gnome 2.2 in to testing.
- it will be a pain to get gnome 2.4 built on all architectures in the
  mean time.
- gnome 2.4 is very stable.
- by the time gnome 2.2 could go in to testing gnome 2.4 would most
  likely be just as stable (gnome 2.4.1 should be out by then aswell as
  all portability problems solved)

Dave asks:

So, gnome 2.4 is "stable".  On one Debian-supported arch, or all?  (John
mentions portablilty problems).  As a side-note, it seems as though people
feel portability/arch-related problems could be found and fixed more
quickly if 2.4 was in unstable rather than experimental, but possibly at
the cost of sarge's ambitious (but mouth-watering) release-date.  Are
unstable's only benefits over experimental (a) automated builds and (b)
wider exposure?

 I suspect stability is only one piece of the 'putting a package through
unstable' puzzle.  Could someone more knowledgable than me please restate
the other pieces so we can separate the 'stability' argument from other

E.g. spell out for some of us noobs an undesirable chain of events that
might hold up testing.  My guess is something like:
1. Against traditional conservativism, 2.4 goes into unstable 'tomorrow',
best-case being it all goes in together after being quickly trialled for
each arch in experimental
2. It takes some time to iron out non-stability related things like package
Replaces: and Depends: lines, or fixing transition scripts for (a) 1.4
users and/or (b) 2.2 users
3. Meanwhile hell freezes over and gcc/glibc are able to go into testing,
and 2.2 would have gone into testing except it's been replaced by 2.4 which
is not ready for 'testing'.
4. sarge is released with 1.4 desktop or delayed until 2.4 is ready?


Reply to: