Le mercredi 16 février 2011 à 20:02 +0100, Luk Claes a écrit : > On 02/16/2011 06:02 PM, Julien Valroff wrote: > > Though I have nothing against this removal, and though I agree this package > > should have been maintained by the GNOME team (I am sure Josselin thought it > > was the case): why was this request approved without any prior > > agreement from the maintainer of the package (me in that case)?
I am terribly sorry about asking for removal without checking. I assumed this package was in pkg-gnome, and I see now that it doesn’t. > > Isn't there any check made before removing a package from the archive to > > ensure the request was actually my by the maintainer (in case of a RoM)? > > No idea about the above part... I think there is an alert sent to the maintainer (or is it through the PTS?), saying that the removal was requested. But that doesn’t help when FTP masters are ultra-fast ;) > > I see also that current users of gdm (still in the archive) now miss a > > feature, and as far as I know, they are currently not forced to switch to > > gdm3. > > gdm is in the process of being removed where only 2 packages > depending/build-depending on gdm are still under consideration... So > everyone in unstable will soon not be able to upgrade or install gdm > anymore. > > Is there any reason why users are not forced to gdm3 when upgrading from > gdm (with a debconf note warning about possible issues) instead of > having all users being forced to find out by themselves that they are > supposed to install gdm3 now? Those who have metapackages installed (like gnome-desktop-environment) will be forced automatically into gdm3. I’m not sure that’s best since the configuration is not preserved, though. -- .''`. : :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know `. `' that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.” `- -- J???rg Schilling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
