On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 20:22 +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 10:06:52AM +0200, Ondrej Sury wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-09-29 at 23:24 +0200, Johannes Rohr wrote: > > > What about users who *depend* on gnucash for their work? I'm, > > > accidently, one of them. I use gnucash for the accounting in my work > > > and I can't see any alternative to it, no matter how obsolete GNOME 1 > > > is. > > > > Please note, that we are not trying to drop gnucash from STABLE Debian > > release. > > > > But it seems to be reasonable for me to exclude gnome1 stuff from etch. > > You can always use D-I-Y method if you want to use gnome1+gnucash. Or > > stay with sarge where gnucash is and will be included. > > But why remove those GNOME1 libraries needed by gnucash (etc) when we > have perfectly good packages of those libraries that just need a bit of > maintenance? Just to please your sense of cleanliness? I am not saying that it's requirement to remove gnome1 from etch. I just wanted to make clear that world is not going to its end right now. Anyway yes, I personaly find it silly to keep whole bunch of obsolete and upstream-dead libraries just because of gnucash, but I may be influenced by fact that I don't use gnucash. On other hand maybe the stir we created by proposal to remove gnome1 will drag more attention to gnucash and they will able to finally convert to gtk2.0 (or gnome2). Ondrej. -- Ondrej Sury <ondrej@sury.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part