On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 12:26:43AM +0100, Erich Schubert wrote: > > eh, but i thought you just said 1.0.x is screwed up with gconf2? > > Why not have 1.0.x conflict with gconf2? > My suggestion would be adding a Depends: on gconf2, and modifing the > galeon-config-tool to purge and kill gconf1 and gconf2... Has gconf2 (and all its depends) stabalized enough yet to consider this? (and does upstream support a distro shipping it at this time?) > If we force people to use gconf2, we don't have to deal with the > gconf1/gconf2 switching issues. It's unrealistic to expect this with something that people are already pulling the unstable package for... > gconf2 isn't yet in testing though it hasn't got big bug reports though; > but it and it's dependencies have been uploaded too often to enter testing. And change their shlibs often enough atm that it would be a bad idea. > We should be able to wait these 7-10 days, i hope. Unless someone looks at the ia64 build failure, or decides that ia64 is not going to be shipping galeon with woody, the 7-10 days are irrelevant... -- Ryan Murray, Debian Developer (email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org) The opinions expressed here are my own.
Description: PGP signature