Re: Upload of GNOME 2.8 to unstable
Some comments from someone external to debian :
Jordi Mallach wrote:
> Hello release team,
>
> The GNOME team have been talking about what the chances are of having
> GNOME 2.8 uploaded to unstable since it was released upstream early in
> September.
Might personnal wishes would be to have the most up to date version
included in sarge. But could you provide a full depends/rdepends tree
(external with regard to gnome*) for people to understand the changes
implied ?
kde3.3 is in sid for quite some time now .... Letting gnome-2.8 in,
might imply letting kde3.3 in. The same depends/rdepends tree will help
understand the pb.
...
> The GNOME team has shown signs of tiredness after too much time
> maintaining two branches: most of the bug reports we get against the 2.6
> packages are general GNOME issues that were addressed in GNOME 2.8 (most
> notably the MIME system replacement), or stuff that isn't so trivial to
> backport. After two major GNOME releases packaged as a team, we're
> seeing how we're gradually losing interest because of this situation.
> On a side note, we'd like to start working on GNOME 2.9 and we have no
> sane place to put it (experimental being used by 2.8 already). We're not
> too excited about maintaining _3_ branches, as one can imagine. :)
Does this mean :
- the debian gnome team isn't sure to be able to maintain 2.6 for sarge
(on a technical point of view)
- the debian gnome team doesn't feel like maintening 2.6 (no insult
meant. maintening old code is less fun).
> Debian users _are_ using GNOME 2.8, and while it's available in
This is wrong. Debian IS stable. The current debian users are the one
using woody. People using experimental are in limbo. The ones using sid
are alpha-testers. The ones using sarge are beta-testers. If DDs ever
forget that, Debian is dead because it has nothing better to propose
than knoppix*, mepis* and all the forks out there.
My own experience shows that {limbo,beta,alpha}-users are a minority, a
usfull and vocal one, but a minority non the less.
@+,
Fab
Reply to: