Re: Installing Cinnamon 2.0
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 11:05 -0500, Conrad Nelson wrote:
> On 10/11/2013 09:57 AM, Jack Malmostoso wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:50:01 +0200
> > Ralf Mardorf<ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> >
> >> MATE from upstream does conflict with other software. This isn't good,
> >> it's the most worse I can imagine and likely the reason that distros
> >> aren't interested to add it to official repositories. MATE is the only
> >> software I know available for Linux, that does conflict with common
> >> software.
> > I use MATE and I have not experience any conflicts. Do you have any
> > examples of programs that don't work when MATE is installed?
> > I am on Sid, if that helps.
> >
> There's an entire subculture on Debian dedicated to blind hatred of MATE
> for no reason.
I don't know this subculture. At least I'm not one of this subculture.
> "Conflicts" are their chief complaint yet I've never once
> seen MATE bashers actually demonstrate any real, reproducible conflict.
> I've used it on Stable, Testing, and Unstable all with zero conflicts
> whatsoever.
I'm speaking about upstream and here is one conflict:
[rocketmouse@archlinux ~]$ sudo pacman -S mate-file-archiver
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...
:: mate-file-archiver and file-roller are in conflict. Remove
file-roller? [y/N]
There are several other conflicts and no, I don't repeat myself again
and again and give more examples.
I had a discussion about GVFS with Mate folks. They claimed it is
needed, OTOH they claimed that it's not a hard dependency for the Mate's
Debian repo, although it supposedly is needed ;).
If you want to maintain official packages for a distro that should be
stable, then contradictory statements from upstream are a no-go and
conflicts as the one between mate-file-archiver and file-roller are a
no-go².
Regards,
Ralf
Reply to: