I do not read debian-gtk-gnome; please keep me in the CC list on replies.
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> > And what if they never do the switch? We can't keep GNOME 1 forever. >> If you cannot maintain them any longer, then you should orphan them. >> This is always appropriate. In fact, it's necessary. When you cannot >> maintain or do not wish to maintain a package, orphan it. > > I understand that I can orphan packages. GNOME 1 was superseded by > GNOME 2, and GNOME 2 provides similar functionality, replacing GNOME 1. > GNOME 1 was kept for a period of _transition_ from GNOME 1 to GNOME 2. > When transitions are over, packages are removed. The GNOME transition > is not eternal. But the gnome-1 transition is not over until the programs which use gnome-1 are transitioned. KDE also provides a similar functionality to gnome-1. openoffice.org provids a "similar functionality" to gnu emacs. By itself, those words mean almost nothing. > I'm concerned for the project as a whole, I'm concerned with the number > of packages in Debian, the number of packages to release, upgrade > paths, the number of packages to maintain at the security level, the > size of the archive, the valuable time of the QA group. Yes, I > understood you're in the QA group. > Don't encourage people every old cruft to the QA group, it means more > cruft stays in Debian. It is a per package decision. I'm not encouraging that. I'm saying dammit, gnucash *needs* these packages, as do a few other apps, and while *you* might not want to do maintenance any longer on the libraries in question, that does *not* mean it's yet time to drop them. > I don't care how slow gnucash development is. If 10000 packages made > the switch from GNOME 1 to GNOME 2 _except_ gnucash, then to the hell > with it. You're saying I'm insensible with the gnucash developers and > their pace of development, why don't you simply say I'm the one putting > the knife under gnucash's throat and I can decide life or death of a > project? Gnucash is the single most complex gnome-1 program there is. Deal with it. It takes time and work. If you are saying "let's drop it now!" then you *are* trying to put the knife under gnucash's throat. > Ask yourself this: would people in the QA team have more time to > package RFPs if they didn't have to handle GNOME 1? Do you have any > measure for the usefulness of your time? And the QA team's time as a > whole? Of course, you do what you want with _your_ time, but shared > project resource are valuable, and my priority is our users as a whole, > not just the GNOME 1 users. Yes dammit, and you are *not* the decider of Debian's priorities. > It's a big chunk of software, not some useful little things that you > keep to do users a favor, it needs real consideration before acting. So STOP ACTING so hastily. And conduct the discussion in public, on debian-devel. > Do you have any list of GNOME 1 packages which might be completely > removed without hurting anyone? Do you have a list of packages > depending on some GNOME 1 packages? Do you have popcon statistics on > finance managers? Is it possible for users to export/import their data > from gnucash to other finance managers? No. A much better strategy is to orphan them all. You want to be the dictator of all things gnome-related. But you don't get to be. Debian does not need dictators. There is no gnome-dictator. All you get to do is maintain packages, and when you don't want to any more, orphan them. You do *NOT* get to tell me which packages I should be allowed to maintain. Thomas
