Re: Why can't why have both GNOME 2 and GNOME 3?
On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:27:54 -0800, Kevin Ross 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 think the upstream GNOME team decided to follow that path (instead
doing what KDE did, that is, keeping both branches separated -3.x and
4.x) because old GTK+2 based applications can be run from GNOME3 without
much code editing so the migration was made with many of us unnoticing
the change.
> 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?
To me, yes, seems very reasonable and even desirable because that would
have done users very happy. But I'ms afraid doing this had generated a
lot of work for Debian GNOME maintainers and resources (in the form of
people and time) are always scarce so in the end, I prefer to have a well-
done, well-tested and full-featured GNOME3 and gnome-shell than a half-
made/tested GNOME3+gnome-shell and a partially supported GNOME2 :-)
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: