Re: Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable
Steve Langasek <email@example.com> writes:
> we are, one of my requirements is that the GNOME team identify to us the
> minimum set of GNOME 2.6 source packages they want to release with for
> this effort to be worthwhile, and then ensure that the package
> relationships be updated to reflect this (versioned conflicts/depends)
Yes, I totally agee with that. We have already worked in this way. BTW there
is probably still some depends to update, but we will work on this to
fix most of the potential issues in the next upload of each packages, so
if we upload in unstable it should be ok.
> offered to help identify the missing package relationships needed to
> enforce the GNOME team's release expectations.
> I would also like to see some analysis of how GNOME 2.6 in unstable will
> affect other non-GNOME packages. For instance, if GNOME 2.6 requires a
> new version of GTK+ as well, will this require a transition for other
> GTK+-using packages?
Old apps should build and run fine with with GTK+2.4. BTW if a package
use -DDEPRECATED flags and some functions deprecated since gtk+2.4 it
won't build anymore ... but Gnome release's policy is to not use in
DDEPRECATED flags in release tarballs, so hopefully it should not be a
> Finally, are there any bugs you currently know of affecting GNOME 2.4 in
> testing that you would not be willing to live with through a 2-year
> release cycle if GNOME 2.6 didn't make the cut?
Yes, network shares browsing in nautilus (especially smb://) is totally
broken with GNOME2.4 , which is really a problem for people using it in
a network with Windows' boxes.