Re: do not delete gnome-1
Dear Thomas Bushnell,
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> But the gnome-1 transition is not over until the programs which use
> gnome-1 are transitioned.
As I said a bit later in my message "If 10000 packages made the switch
from GNOME 1 to GNOME 2 _except_ gnucash, then to the hell with it.".
There has to be a limit. The transition is not eternal. If you want
to convince me that Gnucash will really be transitionned, why don't you
give some facts?
> Gnucash is the single most complex gnome-1 program there is. Deal
> with it. It takes time and work.
Right, let's see how much time you need, maybe you can give us a +/-1
year estimation of the year it will be finished, or name a Debian
release you target for the transition to be over. Or maybe you don't
and we're doomed to have GNOME 1 in Debian til the end of times.
> > Ask yourself this: would people in the QA team have more time to
> > package RFPs if they didn't have to handle GNOME 1? Do you have any
> > measure for the usefulness of your time? And the QA team's time as a
> > whole? Of course, you do what you want with _your_ time, but shared
> > project resource are valuable, and my priority is our users as a whole,
> > not just the GNOME 1 users.
> Yes dammit, and you are *not* the decider of Debian's priorities.
Ah now I'm the decider of Debian's priorities. Why not Debian's
dictator of priorities?
Please don't speak for the QA group as a whole.
> > It's a big chunk of software, not some useful little things that you
> > keep to do users a favor, it needs real consideration before acting.
> So STOP ACTING so hastily. And conduct the discussion in public, on
> debian-devel.
Ah, the first Debian dictator is now having the discussion in a private
mailing-list of his own focused on Discussion and coordination among
maintainers of Debian's GTK+, GNOME and dependent or related packages.
While you're at it, I'm also ftpmasters and release asssistant, and
I've already put removal hints for GNOME 1 and gnucash in testing,
unstable, and stable.
Unless you noticed, we're only discussing right now. As it starts,
you're not encouraging anything going in your direction, or giving you
more control over GNOME 1's fate.
> > Do you have any list of GNOME 1 packages which might be completely
> > removed without hurting anyone? Do you have a list of packages
> > depending on some GNOME 1 packages? Do you have popcon statistics on
> > finance managers? Is it possible for users to export/import their data
> > from gnucash to other finance managers?
> No. A much better strategy is to orphan them all.
I did not ask for any kind of strategy. I asked for data, facts,
statistics, reality. Do you have any real life information on the need
for Gnucash (I'm using it by the way, count me in)? Do you have any
list of packages which are affected directly or indirectly by the
current discussion? No, you don't care, what you care about is that no
package that gnucash depends on ever leaves Debian, and you're ready to
*promess* work for GNOME 1, but not to do any actual work.
> You want to be the dictator of all things gnome-related. But you
> don't get to be. Debian does not need dictators. There is no
> gnome-dictator.
Ah, and here I'm GNOME's dictator. Last time I checked I was:
peon-developer
and I'm member of:
no Unix group
> All you get to do is maintain packages, and when you don't want to any
> more, orphan them. You do *NOT* get to tell me which packages I
> should be allowed to maintain.
Thanks, I almost forgot that part about orphaning.
I've sincerely tried giving you the opportunity to list factual data in
favor of GNOME 1's maintenance in Debian (for example after an
orphaning), but you're not playing the game. You did not clarify any
of the points I raised. You're only complaining.
Well, I've heard enough of your complaints and whining on this topic,
so whine alone. I hope you're convincing someone.
Cheers,
--
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>
Reply to: