On Thu, 12 Apr 2018 at 23:32:45 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 06:09:32PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > > particularly if you plan to modify things that are annoying to do via > > a patch series, like the build system. > > I do not see any reason for changing something like the build system.
Perhaps I was overestimating how much is needed to make it work with the current (i.e. 2015) gnome-common package. It seems to have been part of the mass-bug-filing for uses of deprecated or removed macros, but maybe it only used the deprecated macros and not the removed ones. > > Because these packages mention "gnome" in their names, it would be great > > if you could reduce confusion by modifying their Description to clarify > > that they are no longer considered to be part of (current) GNOME. > > Makes sense (similar to e.g. #887783). Yes, and more recently #895348. We haven't historically been very good at making packages that are no longer part of GNOME self-documenting (updating Description fields, moving deprecated libraries to oldlibs, etc.) because people tend to prioritize the (current) key packages, so I'm trying to catch up on several years of Description fixes and oldlibs overrides at the moment. smcv