GNOME-2 transition: necessary?
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 01:34:04PM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just want to recommend reading Aaron Lehmann's post
> "O: rep-xmms" on the debian-devel list. There, someone
> seems to be really annoyed by our GNOME-2 transition
> process.
This raises the question: is a transition necessary?
I think not. I'd rather have both GNOME1 and GNOME2 available from
the debian archive. Doing so puts the choice of environment in the
hands of individual system administrators, which IMHO is where it
ought to be.
It is true that a given package in debian usually follows upstream
through new versions. But there are exceptions: apache, emacs, gcc,
and even automake all have multiple variants in the archive. I guess
the reason for supporting multiple variants is slightly different in
each case. I guess the common theme is that forcing a single version
into the archive would cause pain either to the archive itself
(automake) or to a large number of users. I suggest that the GNOME 1->2
transition falls in the latter category.
It would be no trick to support this with GNOME. At a basic level,
all that is needed is for the program packages to have two versions,
e.g. "gnome-terminal" and "gnome-terminal2". Libraries already do
this, by policy.
Whaddya say?
-S
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gtk-gnome-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: