[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Galeon and Woody

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 (rmurray@cyberhqz.com, rmurray@debian.org)
The opinions expressed here are my own.

Attachment: pgpNEAW3O5eeF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: