-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi,
Sebastien Bacher wrote: > > It seems pretty simple to me. You're saying it's in a state such that it > > can replace gnome 2.4, which has already gone from unstable to testing. > > There is, however, no proof of that, and thus there's risk of something > > breaking. > > Please read the end of my mail. I'm saying that we don't need to fix > gnome2.4 packages (they have not changed for weeks/months), so we can > put gnome2.6 in unstable, lock it by filling RC bugs on glib/gtk and see > if all go as fine as expected. And what is with external (non-GNOME) stuff depending on gtk/atk/etc.? It would be held up then regardless of whether they fix important or even RC bugs... Grüße/Regards, René - -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFAqxGU+FmQsCSK63MRAuWmAJwK3EebQbOflg9GRPDdj/Cin0k3/ACXd3Bp gIBoIW7B8EYgi4+BQvtsXg== =0WUa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
