Re: Update on GNOME 1 cleanup status
On Friday 01 December 2006 04:00, Nathanael Nerode was like:
> tim hall wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 29 November 2006 04:57, Nathanael Nerode was like:
> > ? - pydict
> > ? ? - Maintainer foka@debian.org
> > ? ? - Maintainer probably MIA, last upload in 2002
> > ? ? - unchanged since stable
> > ? ? -- Recommendation: remove from unstable
> > * gnome-print
> > ? - terraform
> > ? ? -- Maintainer kaol@iki.fi
> >
> >Is it possible to clarify or re-iterate occasionally the purpose of this
> >mission for some of us less savvy lurkers? Are you querying these packages
> >because they are known to be broken or just that they will become broken
> > once the old GNOME libraries are cleaned up?
>
> Just because they'll become broken if the old GNOME libraries are cleaned
> up....
>
> ... well, and because the old GNOME libraries are orphaned and
> unmaintained, and if they break, we probably won't fix them. And they have
> lots of irritating bugs and are a pretty ripe target for cleaning up.
> Among other things, they spread 'recursive dependency disease' and have
> been the prime culprit in a number of problematic transitions.
>
> If it weren't for these packages, the old GNOME libraries would have
> been removed already. They're really only there as a courtesy to the
> maintainers and users of these packages. If I thought there was a high
> likelihood that the old GNOME libraries would find a ready adopter and
> maintainer, I wouldn't be doing this.
>
> The package list actually exists for three purposes: to spot packages which
> might deserve to be removed, to spot packages which should be upgraded to
> GNOME 2, and to spot maintainers who might be willing to pick up the GNOME
> 1 libraries, since the GNOME 1 libraries are now in Debian primarily for
> their benefit.
>
> >I don't wish to interfere with a worthwhile cleanup process, I confess to
> >being a terrible hoarder myself and I'd just like some reassurance that
> >you're not proposing to throw out any babies with the bathwater. It's not
> >like I actually use any of these applications either.
>
> Each package needs to be examined individually to identify which of the
> three categories above it is in.
Thanks for that clarification Nathaniel. :)
--
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
Reply to: