> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <quote who="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> > > > Again, I don't think it is for the debian packagers of > GNOME to decide > > what is part of GNOME. I think that would be a radical non-upstream > > patch, with no compelling reason. > > !!! > > Are you kidding?
Please try not react so violently. There really is no harm in discussing. > Do you think that it is up to GNOME to > decide what Debian ships? As upstream, we can make > recommendations based on our knowledge of the software, > underlying intentions and user base, but... I think you're > going way over the top in this case. It's not like Red Hat, > SuSE, Mandrake or any of the others give a crap about "radial > non-upstream patches" to their GNOME-based desktop solutions. Well, I _think_ that debian tries not to do so many non-upstream patches. I could be wrong. As I said, I'm not a seasoned debian user. I do think that a distro should have a rationale for making major changes to a package (and I personally like to think of GNOME as a package). I think that packagers should default to assuming that the GNOME community have considered what's useful for a Desktop. After all, GNOME and the debian GNOME packagers should have very similar aims. Of course none of the GNOME developers think that they can force anything into a distro, and I've often pointed out that that would be a silly and futile reason to add something to a GNOME release set. If a distro doesn't want to package all of GNOME, or to present a GNOME package that isn't representative of GNOME, then that's OK. It's their choice. But I think I'm free to point out the disadvantages. > This comes down to a very Debian-specific issue of figuring > out how the meta packages are going to be most useful to > Debian users, not making sure everything Debian does equates > to GNOME's upstream decisions (no matter how much effort went > into them). Yes, but wouldn't it be nice if people got GNOME when they thought they were getting GNOME? Murray Cumming www.murrayc.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
