[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Pkg-xfce-devel] xfce4 in ubuntu

Hello Jani,

* Jani Monoses <jani.monoses@gmail.com>, [2005-08-08 16:45 +0300]:
>  One of the problems we bumped into is that  our current xffm4 package
>  uses an epoch - 1:4.2.1 making it 'newer' that 4.2.2 in sid which
>  mean
>  we cannot smoothly upgrade and sync.
>  Would it be ok with you to add an epoch to xffm4 in debian too so we
>  don't have to keep gratuitous deltas? I don't know why the epoch was
>  needed back then.

Do the changelog explain why the epoch was introduced? I am a bit
reluctant about using them if not *strictly* necessary...

But let's hear what other people think, especially Simon, who did the
biggest amount of work on the core of the desktop environment.

>  Another os-works /sid difference is the package name of Benny's
>  terminal.He used xterminal while sid has xfce4-terminal.
>  To make upgrading easier it was suggested to me that a new xterminal
>  transitional package is created and made dependent on xfce4-terminal,
>  while the latter is set to Replace and Conflict with an xterminal
>  package earlier than the transitional version.
>  Again would you take such a change in debian -  I suppose it helps
>  those currently using debian who have used os-works packages in the
>  past.

The reason why we adopted the 'xfce4-terminal' name (after a long
discussion) is that we are trying to avoid general names for
applications which are Xfce oriented. A transitional package called
xterminal would break all our efforts in that direction.

>  I'll keep you posted with our changes to see if they're relevant to
>  debian.

Thank you very much, your help is very appreciated.

>  thanks
>  Jani

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xfce-devel/attachments/20050808/bc72826a/attachment.pgp

Reply to: