Re: Thunar 1.6.15 on Stable
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, 2018-05-22 at 17:39 -0300, Kolmar Kafran wrote:
> I sent to the backport list a request for the backport of Thunar
> 1.6.15 to debian stable.
Hi Kolmer, thanks for reaching us.
Could you please coordinate that with us before sending a mail to backports
the next time? Package maintenance is more than just backports, and the right
list for that is this one, not backports. I'm not subscribed to the backports
list so I didn't receive your mail and it makes it hard for me to tell people
there not to bother with it. Can you do that please?
> But I would like to ask for you guys if
> Thunar 1.6.15 shouldn't come to stretch-updates.
> As XFCE is preparing for the 4.14 version on GTK, the Thunar code
> received a lot of attention lately. The version on Stable has a lot of
> bugs that were corrected since then. The Thunar 1.6.15 is pretty
> stable right now and all know bugs seems to be fixed. So, should it
> come to Debian Stable through stretch-updates or stretch-backport ?
I didn't look at it, but my feeling on this is:
- - I don't think any of the bugs are release critical right now; if there are,
can you identify them and raise their severity?
- - The diff between 1.6.11-1 and 1.6.15-1 is likely to be huge, and I'm not
really sure it will qualify for stable updates.
>
> Sorry for this kind of question. I'm pretty new to Debian. As Ubuntu
> 18.04 is pretty buggy, I'm migrating from Ubuntu to Debian. I'm an
> XFCE user for a long time and what made me upgrade my system was
> exactly these Thunar bugs, which were present on Ubuntu 16.04 and Mint
> 18.3 as well. I'm using Debian Gnome right now hopping to find my way
> for a XFCE Thunar bug free environment.
Start by identifying specific bugs and fixes, and compare that to what's in
1.6.15 and the potential for regressions in stable.
Regards,
- --
Yves-Alexis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAlsFJVkACgkQ3rYcyPpX
RFsjXQf/TzML48FqfWsWGom+tKTJ5JKCLNFukZomMUZezrBwEqs49gnpOOoPJXkc
vwj70DHWomQ0gOT+anQoWxuhFkCdZn3adqKXI8CncVKr12VHnzEXajuoKWhdNL6i
ypSg51QiDhjmYLOWgRKExh/6shsnJlVEByfDfbGaePMnU3PdDqvdaaxLy0CzQN8l
mFHVLTb0jHewCGi1nRVRcdqP8NscH2PCULcIzY4IkplqdG2oNQgA2OiqR7KzJwCC
kUWvdKjtcbwRxeFCMYk2Sd7PtMupAK1yEHPRmHTh0bUjjGS5/Kp6mOchMBh6Gg1U
FvgwwIw8EbGcNXpYEIQofRPMWzTF7g==
=pxh9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: