Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable
<quote who="Steve Langasek">
> Anthony and Colin may have other concerns; I'll let them speak for
> themselves. For my own part, if you can address the above, I don't see
> any reason why GNOME 2.6 can't be allowed into unstable.
Aren't you guys in freeze? I think the right thing to do would be to suck up
the damage and ship GNOME 2.4 in Sarge. Sure, that is not as cool and shiny,
but being open to massive changes at this stage of the release cycle sounds
like a recipe for disaster. I'm sure it's tempting to allow it because noone
knows when the next Debian release will be, but in terms of risk management,
it's a baaad idea (and that's coming from upstream).
* 2.4 is known to be good in testing
* 2.6 is new itself, and very newly packaged
* Would subsequent changes in 2.6.1 hit sarge if 2.6 goes down now?
* Surely we're somewhere near the end of the sarge release process? Why
would a huge number of new packages for a major component be accepted at
* Broken bits of GNOME 2.6 will probably have more embarrassing long-term
consequences than shipping sarge with a known-good GNOME 2.4.
I'm not sure the question of shipping GNOME 2.6 in sarge has anything to do
with GNOME or the Debian packages of it at all, really... It is more about
when sarge is going to ship, and the kinds of risks Debian's willing to take
in that process.
GVADEC 2004: Kristiansand, Norway http://2004.guadec.org/
"Think video. Think text flickering over your walls. Think games at
work. Think anything where a staid, link-based browser is useless."
"This person wrote for Ab Fab, right?" - Rich Welykochy