Re: Why can't why have both GNOME 2 and GNOME 3?
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 3:27 AM, Kevin Ross <kevin@familyross.net> wrote:
>
> Why weren't the new gnome packages named with a "3" in their name, to allow
> both gnome 2 and gnome 3 to exist in the repositories, and allow the user to
> choose which one they want? After all, we had apache and apache2, php4 and
> php5, mysql4 and mysql5, etc, etc.
>
> I'm not saying they should be allowed to be installed at the same time, if
> that would cause problems. I would be perfectly happy if the "gnome3"
> package(s) had a "Conflicts: gnome2" type of entry in the metadata.
>
> Does that seem reasonable?
It's most probably because GNOME 2's been EOLd upstream. For example,
IIRC, apache1 and apache2 coexisted for sarge and etch because they
were both maintained upstream at the time.
Reply to: