On Wed, 2002-06-19 at 18:29, Steve Greenland wrote: > This is probably going to sound a harsh, but as a user of GNOME, and > assuming that the idea is to release (woody+1) with GNOME 2.x and not > GNOME 1.x, I'd vote for putting GNOME 2.x in unstable without using foo2 > style names.
I don't want to replace GNOME 1.4 in unstable right now; I still use it as my main desktop environment. Some big things (e.g. Evolution) still aren't ported to 2.0. I don't see why we can't have the best of both worlds; e.g. GNOME 2 available in unstable now with the "2" suffix where applicable, and then at some point before woody+1 we rename all the packages and replace GNOME 1.4. I do understand the reasons for keeping things in experimental, though. I don't know. Maybe I'm just annoyed because experimental isn't autobuilt, and everyone else uploads for i386. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
