Re: Bits from the GNOME Team
- To: hertzog@debian.org
- Cc: ross@burtonini.com, debian-gtk-gnome@lists.debian.org, jordi@debian.org, joss@debian.org, netsnipe@users.sourceforge.net, kitame@debian.org, emil@nishra.com, j.rohr@comlink.apc.org, ejad@debian.org, kov@debian.org, robster@debian.org, seb128@debian.org, tagoh@debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bits from the GNOME Team
- From: Akira TAGOH <tagoh@debian.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:33:22 +0900 (JST)
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20030924.213322.893804092.tagoh@debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20030924104701.GA17774@home.ouaza.com>
- References: <[🔎] 87r827mdng.fsf@seb128.wanadoo.fr> <[🔎] 1064398346.483.87.camel@carados.180sw.com> <[🔎] 20030924104701.GA17774@home.ouaza.com>
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 12:47:01 +0200,
>>>>> "RH" == Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> wrote:
RH> Considering the size of Gnome I doubt this is a good idea. Better only
RH> maintain the debian directory with SVN/CVS. Of course, the debian dir
RH> should be the only change to the upstream source. That means all
RH> packages should use a system like dpatch to be able to modify the
RH> upstream sources.
Yeah, we definitely shouldn't do apply the patches to the
source directly. it causes the problem to maintain as team.
So I need to separate the changes about glib1.2 and gtk+1.2
first ;)
Regards,
--
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
Reply to: