Re: Keep non-gnome2.6 package out of the discussion please [was: GNOME 2.6 definitely not ready for unstable]
On Sun, 23 May 2004, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> This is NOT a critic of Sebastian's otherwise excellent work as a maintainer,
> but it is yet another proof that Rhythmbox was not ready. That and, given how
Oh so now it's rythmbox that is not ready? Since Rythmbox is not part of
gnome-core, is not maintained by Sebastien or any other member of the
gnome team, is not under either the responsibility nor control of the
gnome team, I cannot see how that in any way reflects on the gnome
packages.
> Sebastian is the one that replied to my Rhythmbox bug and how he also is the one
> advocating entry of GNMOE 2.6 into unstable, I indeed have every reasons to
> beleive that a few more corners might have been cut in GNOME 2.6, the same way
> as Rhythmbox was released a tad too hastily.
So again, now you're judging the gnome packages on the quality of the
rythmbox packages?? Your point doesn't hold ANY sense at all, and I do
not think you can extrapolate the quality of the gnome packages given
the quality of a non-gnome package.
People here are very anxious to get gnome into sarge, and JUST when they
have the fiat, some ignorant fool comes along, and has the guts to post
to debian-release that gnome is not ready because an unrelated package
does not work???
> Again, I'm quite confident that every bug will eventualy be nailed down, but
> this butched Rhythmbox release makes me really nervous about seeing GNOME 2.6
> enter unstable at _this_ stage. It just feels like it needs more testing.
Rythmbox shouldn't have gone into unstable IMHO at this point, but a
transition will most likely involve some minor problems, like yours,
which can and will be fixed when all relevant packages are in unstable.
You can't just go yelling "Don't make this transition, because it will
cause problems!" on debian-release for every transition, because trans-
itions inherently do have minor problems (and in this case your problem
wasn't related to gnome, apart from the fact that a utility which makes
live easier, but isn't necessary for the problem to be fixed, was mis-
sing due to the fact that the transition hadn't even started).
Your assertion that gnome isn't ready for unstable is based on an ex-
ternal package (not under the control of the gnome team) is temporarily
broken, which is not a situation people will see in sarge, because
sarge will have all the necessary packages in at once.
Unstable inherently involves minor breakage like this every now and
then, and if you're unwilling to cope with it in a mature way, ie sol-
ving it the hard (gconf-editor) way, you should be using testing and
not unstable. That's what it's called unstable for.
> Getting replies along the lines of "maybe you're just too stupid to use
> gconf-editor" when gconfd's lack of ability to respun flawlessly and quickly
> after a schema has been upgraded is clearly something that happens out of no
> fault on the user's part, was downright rude on Sebastian's part. Given this, I
> was entirely in my right to yell back at him.
You were in no way at all in your right here. Quite the contrary, I
think you 1) owe Sebastien and the whole gnome team an apology, and 2)
should mail debian-release stating that you were wrong in your asser-
tion that gnome isn't ready for sarge.
And if you can't cope with that, maybe you should be using testing like
mentioned above.
Chipzz AKA
Jan Van Buggenhout
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIX isn't dead - It just smells funny
Chipzz@ULYSSIS.Org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Baldric, you wouldn't recognize a subtle plan if it painted itself pur-
ple and danced naked on a harpsicord singing 'subtle plans are here a-
gain'."
Reply to: