Re: Installing Cinnamon 2.0
On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 18:43 -0400, Tom H wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Ralf Mardorf
> <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:42:44 +0200, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> MATE can be installed alongside other DEs on Fedora so I'm not at all
> >> convinced by this MATE-conflicts-with-"common-software" meme!
> >> Soneone said upthread that MATE uses GTK2. AFAIK it's being
> >> transitioned to GTK3 so it'll then be less of a burden to package it
> >> for Debian.
> >
> > Correct, Mate does a transition to GTK3, but as explained before, it still
> > would be a PITA to make packages for official repositories, since you need
> > to prevent against such a conflict:
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:43:43 +0200, Alex Moonshine <afterclouds@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, but why would one need mate-file-archiver (Engrampa) and
> >> file-roller on the same machine? The former is a fork of the latter
> >> (and to all practical means just the same package under different
> >> name). Same goes for nautilus/caja, gedit/pluma, etc.
> >> I think that either you use MATE DE and Engrampa replaces file-roller
> >> for you, or, if you want to install MATE on a system that already has
> >> some other DE with file-roller installed, that you want to keep, you
> >> install mate-base package, which (I believe) includes none of extra
> >> applications (and you can go on using file-roller under MATE).
> >
> > Somebody might want to test GNOME 3 and Mate on the same install. There are
> > workarounds. I e.g. didn't install mate-file-archiver and add a link
> > /usr/bin/matedialog -> zenity.
>
> One of the reasons for using a distribution is for its maintainers to
> take care of such issues for their users.
>
> Fedora must've dealt with this issue. (I assume that Mint has too!)
>
> If Debian were to package MATE, it would do so too. If the Debian
> maintainers of two packages can't agree, there's a technical committee
> to propose/impose a solution.
>
> The example that you gave was from Arch; its maintainers simply didn't
> do the right thing (in this particular instance, not overall!). That
> doesn't mean that MATE is broken or that it breaks other packages.
The Mate repository is definitive _not_ an official Arch repository,
IIUC it's provided by Mate upstream. However, an official Arch
repositories would follow upstream.
Even for distros that do not follow upstream there isn't a technical
solution for this issue that could be solved by a committee.
Reply to: