Re: Bits of the gnome 1.x removal effort
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: Colin Watson: telegnome If there is a package you love in that list, it'd be _really_ great to send patches to migrate them to gnome2/gtk2 libraries[0]. With the consent of the previous upstream maintainer, I've taken over upstream maintenance of telegnome, and am working on converting it to modern libraries now. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits of the gnome 1.x removal effort
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 01:30:43PM +, Colin Watson wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: Colin Watson: telegnome If there is a package you love in that list, it'd be _really_ great to send patches to migrate them to gnome2/gtk2 libraries[0]. With the consent of the previous upstream maintainer, I've taken over upstream maintenance of telegnome, and am working on converting it to modern libraries now. Wonderful, thanks ! -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpTRJrtLh28Q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bits of the gnome 1.x removal effort
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Christian, On 2/11/08, Christian Perrier wrote: Quoting Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Hi there, I'm working for about a month to remove all the old bits of gnome 1.x from Debian for lenny. There was about 40 packages affected not so long time ago, it's 13 now (about half were migrated or dropped the dependency one way or the other, the other half was bitrot and removed). .../... Sergio Rua: gmanedit .../... If there is a package you love in that list, it'd be _really_ great to send patches to migrate them to gnome2/gtk2 libraries[0]. This is a call for help, because it requires some knowledge of gnome/gtk core libraries for some of those. I have been working in the gmanedit's porting to gtk2 the last days. Is very strong to do, but I want to know that someone has interest. I'm 85% porcent ready. I'm working in other gnome1.x apps right now. Regards. - -- Anibal Avelar (FixXxeR) http://fixxxer.cc GPG: 83B64656 - C143 4AD8 B017 53FA B742 D6AA CEEA F9F3 83B6 4656 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://firegpg.tuxfamily.org iD8DBQFHuhi7zur584O2RlYRAipnAJ9DUJjTwC7Ru6xF6I9Vuiw4uJzGwgCfd9Rq AwLddBEqFwjY4FfstDWR+tc= =wmzp -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits of the gnome 1.x removal effort
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi. I'm working on this programs (to porting to gtk2): Sergio Rua: gmanedit (ready 80%) Marcela Tiznado:gtkgo (ready 70%) Aurelien Labrosse: xwine (ready 70%) chbg (libgnome-dev) (ready 95%) All in one night (except chbg that is my package and I have more time working on it). The more strong to do is to migrate from GnomeUIInfo. In all packages I have ready all except this. Also I'm working on gcrontab karpski Both programs has dependencies with libgtk1.2 and libglib1.2. I know they don't have dependencies with gnome 1.x, but I think libgtk1.2 will be obsolete soon. I just adopted gcrontab, gmanedit and karpski. May be will be good idea if the mantainers of gtkgo and xwine want that I adopt them. Regards. - -- Anibal Avelar (FixXxeR) http://fixxxer.cc GPG: 83B64656 - C143 4AD8 B017 53FA B742 D6AA CEEA F9F3 83B6 4656 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: http://firegpg.tuxfamily.org iD8DBQFHuh3Nzur584O2RlYRApeLAJ0XsZEUMVlxeBHNXK6+r6fAN9hwSACfT669 XqWI15JPwiWuzU0yeFpUwM8= =BP8P -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits of the gnome 1.x removal effort
Quoting Anibal Avelar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi. I'm working on this programs (to porting to gtk2): Sergio Rua: gmanedit (ready 80%) Please also correct the debian/changelog encoding in that package. I couldn't complete it during my NMU round recently because I wasn't able to rebuild the package properly. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits of the gnome 1.x removal effort
Quoting Pierre Habouzit ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Hi there, I'm working for about a month to remove all the old bits of gnome 1.x from Debian for lenny. There was about 40 packages affected not so long time ago, it's 13 now (about half were migrated or dropped the dependency one way or the other, the other half was bitrot and removed). .../... Sergio Rua: gmanedit .../... If there is a package you love in that list, it'd be _really_ great to send patches to migrate them to gnome2/gtk2 libraries[0]. This is a call for help, because it requires some knowledge of gnome/gtk core libraries for some of those. In case someone thinks about fixing gmanedit, please also consider fixing the debian/changelog encoding (#453982) which is also a lenny release goal. This can be fixed with iconv -t utf-8 -f iso-8859-1 changelog changelog.new (I checked that this changelog file is not a mix of UTF-8 and ISO-885961). signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits of the gnome 1.x removal effort
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 03:43:38PM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: [...] As a side note, those packages have spurious build-dependencies on gnome1.x libraries (and have no corresponding runtime dependencies), bugs will be filed soon: [...] Also, on a related note, while preparing glotski for upload, I noticed that it was linking in unnecessary libraries by blindly passing the output of `pkg-config libgnomeui-2.0 --libs` to the linker. The resulting binary depended on a lot of libraries that it didn't actually use. Adding '-Wl,--as-needed' to the link line got rid of the unnecessary dependencies. Just thought this tidbit might be helpful to people who want to clean up spurious package dependencies. T -- Let's eat some disquits while we format the biskettes. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome 1.x removal
Quoting Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Because the last time you all did this it got all the way to deleting the packages and I had to run around and clean that up. I'm asking you to give the maintainers a chance. That's all. Is it really that hard to do? Isn't this what is happening right now? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:53:50PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: Pierre Habouzit wrote: As per release goal, gnome 1.x won't be shipped in Lenny. I just started a first round of bugs (severity important for now), with user/usertag [EMAIL PROTECTED]/gnome-1.x-removal so that people interested in that goal can track our progress. Two thumbs up, thanks for pushing this. Then I'll do some more runs of the same principle on other gnome 1.x related libs until we got rid of them al. If possible, libxml should be removed as well, most of the rev deps are gnome1-related and the few remaining packages could be fixed to use libxml2. With my libxml1 and libxml2 maintainer hat on, I'd even say packages using libxml1 are using a really buggy XML parser and really should be fixed to use libxml2. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 09:34:54AM +, Pierre Habouzit wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:10:26AM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Don't start filing remove requests until other maintainers have a chance. Take the step of contacting those who maintain packages that depend on the libraries you want to remove, post RFAs instead of remove requests, and only post remove requests after people have had a goodly chance to take over maintenance themselves. And please don't disregard the Reply-To I set, debian-release@ isn't a discussion list. Thanks. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpbAv6TJaB5S.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:10:26AM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Don't start filing remove requests until other maintainers have a chance. Take the step of contacting those who maintain packages that depend on the libraries you want to remove, post RFAs instead of remove requests, and only post remove requests after people have had a goodly chance to take over maintenance themselves. Please, gnome 1.x is discontinued for years now, and the number of packages that depends upon gnome-libs is fairly limited now, it's a bearable task. FWIW the current list of package is: cheops-ng coriander cronosii directory-administrator fvwm gabber gaby gbatnav gbib gdk-pixbuf gfontview gfslicer glotski gmanedit gmoo gnome-chess gnome-lokkit gnome-print gnomemm gnomp3 gpgp gphotocoll gtkgo gtkgrepmail gtoaster junior-gnome libglade libgtk-canvas libgtk-perl mathwar multi-gnome-terminal [ maintainer already agreed upon removal ] nethack pimppa powershell snac soundtracker spacechart telegnome terraform xemacs21 xgsmlib xwine Most of those package either have far better alternatives (gabber, gtoaster, …), are libs (lib*, gnomemm, …) or will probably easily drop the dependency (xemacs21, nethack, …). Most of the upstreams of those applications are dead, and the applications don't budge, and there is little point in having them in lenny when you can use the version in etch on your lenny without a problem. And btw, I didn't filed a bug for removal of gnome-libs yet, I'll first wait to see how this list get reduced. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpy7OEtvCtHe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnome 1.x removal
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As long as there's interest the software will stay alive is one of the main tenets of Free Software. Consequently, IMHO, as long as there's people willing to maintain it, it shouldn't be removed regardless of how old it is. GNOME 1.x is neither maintained in Debian nor upstream. Noone has stepped forward to keep it alive. The main reason that it's still in Debian is that we don't clean up often enough. Marc -- BOFH #24: network packets travelling uphill (use a carrier pigeon) pgpjiLeTBCg38.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Pierre Habouzit wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:10:26AM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Don't start filing remove requests until other maintainers have a chance. Take the step of contacting those who maintain packages that depend on the libraries you want to remove, post RFAs instead of remove requests, and only post remove requests after people have had a goodly chance to take over maintenance themselves. Please, gnome 1.x is discontinued for years now, and the number of packages that depends upon gnome-libs is fairly limited now, it's a bearable task. FWIW the current list of package is: As long as there's interest the software will stay alive is one of the main tenets of Free Software. Consequently, IMHO, as long as there's people willing to maintain it, it shouldn't be removed regardless of how old it is. = If the current maintainer is no longer interested others should get the change to step forward and take over, and only if noone steps up it should be removed -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tuesday 15 January 2008, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As long as there's interest the software will stay alive is one of the main tenets of Free Software. Consequently, IMHO, as long as there's people willing to maintain it, it shouldn't be removed regardless of how old it is. GNOME 1.x is neither maintained in Debian nor upstream. Noone has stepped forward to keep it alive. The main reason that it's still in Debian is that we don't clean up often enough. I had the impresion from this thread that people hadn't had the chance to step forward to take over maintenance yet, seems that impression was wrong, in which case I'm all for removal -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 10:34 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:10:26AM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Don't start filing remove requests until other maintainers have a chance. Take the step of contacting those who maintain packages that depend on the libraries you want to remove, post RFAs instead of remove requests, and only post remove requests after people have had a goodly chance to take over maintenance themselves. Please, gnome 1.x is discontinued for years now, and the number of packages that depends upon gnome-libs is fairly limited now, it's a bearable task. FWIW the current list of package is: This is what people said before, and gnucash nearly vanished from Debian because the gnome team hadn't bothered to alert me or arrange an orderly transition. So please, let these maintainers choose, rather than ordering them about. It is *they* who are in a position to decide whether maintaining gnome 1.x is worth it. Of course, it will also be up to them to do the maintenance. Most of those package either have far better alternatives (gabber, gtoaster, …), are libs (lib*, gnomemm, …) or will probably easily drop the dependency (xemacs21, nethack, …). Most of the upstreams of those applications are dead, and the applications don't budge, and there is little point in having them in lenny when you can use the version in etch on your lenny without a problem. Most? Really? Wow, I'm impressed. Are you sure? People said this the last time around, and they forgot gnucash. How about we let these maintainers make that determination rather than you making it for them? Thomas
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 04:35:54PM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 10:34 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:10:26AM +, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: Don't start filing remove requests until other maintainers have a chance. Take the step of contacting those who maintain packages that depend on the libraries you want to remove, post RFAs instead of remove requests, and only post remove requests after people have had a goodly chance to take over maintenance themselves. Please, gnome 1.x is discontinued for years now, and the number of packages that depends upon gnome-libs is fairly limited now, it's a bearable task. FWIW the current list of package is: This is what people said before, and gnucash nearly vanished from Debian because the gnome team hadn't bothered to alert me or arrange an orderly transition. So please, let these maintainers choose, rather than ordering them about. It is *they* who are in a position to decide whether maintaining gnome 1.x is worth it. Of course, it will also be up to them to do the maintenance. Now explain me why _you_ who aren't concerned by the transition are from far the most vocal about it ? Most of those package either have far better alternatives (gabber, gtoaster, …), are libs (lib*, gnomemm, …) or will probably easily drop the dependency (xemacs21, nethack, …). Most of the upstreams of those applications are dead, and the applications don't budge, and there is little point in having them in lenny when you can use the version in etch on your lenny without a problem. Most? Really? Wow, I'm impressed. Are you sure? People said this the last time around, and they forgot gnucash. How about we let these maintainers make that determination rather than you making it for them? I opened bugs on the packages so that people can discuss it, and I'll monitor them closely I said it. The fact that you don't seem to trust my word that it's exactly what I'll do is insulting. And again please stop Cc-ing debian-release. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpsn8cEXmIof.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:35:54AM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: So please, let these maintainers choose, rather than ordering them about. It is *they* who are in a position to decide whether maintaining gnome 1.x is worth it. Of course, it will also be up to them to do the maintenance. gnome-libs has now been orphaned for more than a year. I would have expected it to have been picked up by now. Most? Really? Wow, I'm impressed. Are you sure? People said this the last time around, and they forgot gnucash. How about we let these maintainers make that determination rather than you making it for them? Do you know of any specific examples that would cause a problem? Neil -- moray hm, maybe wearing a black t-shirt while dusting my bedroom for the first time in years wasn't such a good idea signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:56 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: So please, let these maintainers choose, rather than ordering them about. It is *they* who are in a position to decide whether maintaining gnome 1.x is worth it. Of course, it will also be up to them to do the maintenance. Now explain me why _you_ who aren't concerned by the transition are from far the most vocal about it ? Because the last time you all did this it got all the way to deleting the packages and I had to run around and clean that up. I'm asking you to give the maintainers a chance. That's all. Is it really that hard to do? I opened bugs on the packages so that people can discuss it, and I'll monitor them closely I said it. The fact that you don't seem to trust my word that it's exactly what I'll do is insulting. I didn't say I didn't trust your word. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 13:39 +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As long as there's interest the software will stay alive is one of the main tenets of Free Software. Consequently, IMHO, as long as there's people willing to maintain it, it shouldn't be removed regardless of how old it is. GNOME 1.x is neither maintained in Debian nor upstream. Noone has stepped forward to keep it alive. The main reason that it's still in Debian is that we don't clean up often enough. This is what was said the last time. But nobody asked the maintainers of gnome 1.x packages whether they would maintain it; the team just decreed that nobody would step forward, and started deleting packages. It caused a major headache. I'm asking for a more orderly process this time. Instead of saying we're deleting this, you will all have to adapt, say, we aren't maintaining this anymore; if you want it, you'll have to start taking it over. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:02 +, Neil McGovern wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:35:54AM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: So please, let these maintainers choose, rather than ordering them about. It is *they* who are in a position to decide whether maintaining gnome 1.x is worth it. Of course, it will also be up to them to do the maintenance. gnome-libs has now been orphaned for more than a year. I would have expected it to have been picked up by now. I wouldn't. I don't keep tabs on every package that my packages depend on. One of them could be orphaned and I would never know. Most? Really? Wow, I'm impressed. Are you sure? People said this the last time around, and they forgot gnucash. How about we let these maintainers make that determination rather than you making it for them? Do you know of any specific examples that would cause a problem? No; I haven't investigated it. That's why I am asking to let those maintainers decide. Thinking up yet one more way to make the decision without involving them seems like a poor strategy. There is no need for me to figure out whether there is a specific example or not. Instead, just tell the maintainers, and give them the option. Thomas - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome 1.x removal
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 13:39 +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As long as there's interest the software will stay alive is one of the main tenets of Free Software. Consequently, IMHO, as long as there's people willing to maintain it, it shouldn't be removed regardless of how old it is. GNOME 1.x is neither maintained in Debian nor upstream. Noone has stepped forward to keep it alive. The main reason that it's still in Debian is that we don't clean up often enough. This is what was said the last time. But nobody asked the maintainers of gnome 1.x packages whether they would maintain it; the team just decreed that nobody would step forward, and started deleting packages. It caused a major headache. I'm asking for a more orderly process this time. Instead of saying we're deleting this, you will all have to adapt, say, we aren't maintaining this anymore; if you want it, you'll have to start taking it over. We can surely keep all old cruft in the archive and never release again (or not with these packages anyway), though I don't think that is preferred from a quality assurance, security nor release point of view... Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome 1.x removal
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I wouldn't. I don't keep tabs on every package that my packages depend on. One of them could be orphaned and I would never know. Running wnpp-alert weekly out of cron is a good idea for any DD, IMO. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome 1.x removal
Thomas Bushnell BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Instead of saying we're deleting this, you will all have to adapt, say, we aren't maintaining this anymore; if you want it, you'll have to start taking it over. Isn't that exactly what bug #369130 means? I thought it was the responsibility of the package maintainer to run 'wnpp-alert' to be aware if the packages they depend on need help. It was retitled as ITA on 2007-08-19, and not altered since then. That means it won't show up in 'wnpp-alert', which is unfortunate since it's been rather a long time. -- \ I know when I'm going to die, because my birth certificate has | `\an expiration date. -- Steven Wright | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 19:56 +0100, Luk Claes wrote: We can surely keep all old cruft in the archive and never release again (or not with these packages anyway), though I don't think that is preferred from a quality assurance, security nor release point of view... Of course, this isn't what I suggested. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome 1.x removal
Pierre Habouzit wrote: As per release goal, gnome 1.x won't be shipped in Lenny. I just started a first round of bugs (severity important for now), with user/usertag [EMAIL PROTECTED]/gnome-1.x-removal so that people interested in that goal can track our progress. Two thumbs up, thanks for pushing this. Then I'll do some more runs of the same principle on other gnome 1.x related libs until we got rid of them al. If possible, libxml should be removed as well, most of the rev deps are gnome1-related and the few remaining packages could be fixed to use libxml2. Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 10:53:50PM +, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: Pierre Habouzit wrote: As per release goal, gnome 1.x won't be shipped in Lenny. I just started a first round of bugs (severity important for now), with user/usertag [EMAIL PROTECTED]/gnome-1.x-removal so that people interested in that goal can track our progress. Two thumbs up, thanks for pushing this. Then I'll do some more runs of the same principle on other gnome 1.x related libs until we got rid of them al. If possible, libxml should be removed as well, most of the rev deps are gnome1-related and the few remaining packages could be fixed to use libxml2. Okay, this will go next then, consider it on my todolist. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgp8mQGaKASZt.pgp Description: PGP signature
gnome 1.x removal
As per release goal, gnome 1.x won't be shipped in Lenny. I just started a first round of bugs (severity important for now), with user/usertag [EMAIL PROTECTED]/gnome-1.x-removal so that people interested in that goal can track our progress. I will file a removal request for gnome-libs when I come back from vacation in 10 days, and then will raise the bugs I just sent to serious. Then I'll do some more runs of the same principle on other gnome 1.x related libs until we got rid of them al. If you know your package depends on gnome 1.x one way or the other, now is the time to fix that, package a new upstream, or ask for its removal, so that it eases our work. TIA -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpclX8C64QCR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnome 1.x removal
(Dropping -release, which is not a discussion list, and Pierre, who is obviously subscribed to both.) On 15/01/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: This is not the right process for something like this. Instead, I believe you should find out specifically which packages depend on gnome 1.x, and offer those maintainers the option of taking over maintenance. Although getting recursive rdepends is interesting, are you suggesting that the release team is supposed to take over the maintenance of one-could-say obsolete software? It is not a trivial task to port many programs to gnome 2; it took gnucash a long time. Don't screw over other maintainers; make it easy for them. xmms might be another example. *cough* Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois pgpIOH5akEscD.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 00:07 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: Then I'll do some more runs of the same principle on other gnome 1.x related libs until we got rid of them al. If you know your package depends on gnome 1.x one way or the other, now is the time to fix that, package a new upstream, or ask for its removal, so that it eases our work. This happened once before when the issue was gnucash. I was the gnucash maintainer, and the gnome maintainers had decreed that Debian must not have gnome 1.x in it! And all the libraries were about to vanish. This is not the right process for something like this. Instead, I believe you should find out specifically which packages depend on gnome 1.x, and offer those maintainers the option of taking over maintenance. It is not a trivial task to port many programs to gnome 2; it took gnucash a long time. Don't screw over other maintainers; make it easy for them. Don't start filing remove requests until other maintainers have a chance. Take the step of contacting those who maintain packages that depend on the libraries you want to remove, post RFAs instead of remove requests, and only post remove requests after people have had a goodly chance to take over maintenance themselves. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome 1.x removal
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 02:20 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: (Dropping -release, which is not a discussion list, and Pierre, who is obviously subscribed to both.) On 15/01/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: This is not the right process for something like this. Instead, I believe you should find out specifically which packages depend on gnome 1.x, and offer those maintainers the option of taking over maintenance. Although getting recursive rdepends is interesting, are you suggesting that the release team is supposed to take over the maintenance of one-could-say obsolete software? No, I said just what I meant: the maintainers of packages dependent on gnome 1.x should be offered the option of taking over maintenance. The release team certainly should not bear that task, unless individuals within it for their own reasons choose to. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gnome 1.x removal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/14/08 19:20, Cyril Brulebois wrote: (Dropping -release, which is not a discussion list, and Pierre, who is obviously subscribed to both.) On 15/01/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: This is not the right process for something like this. Instead, I believe you should find out specifically which packages depend on gnome 1.x, and offer those maintainers the option of taking over maintenance. Although getting recursive rdepends is interesting, are you suggesting that the release team is supposed to take over the maintenance of one-could-say obsolete software? I think he meant that maintainers of the obsolete sw that uses v1.2 should be the ones to maintain v1.2. It is not a trivial task to port many programs to gnome 2; it took gnucash a long time. Don't screw over other maintainers; make it easy for them. xmms might be another example. *cough* - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals, I'm a vegetarian because I hate vegetables! unknown -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHjBYiS9HxQb37XmcRAk2OAKCRxUS0jCmMBMyplYHT4iy5dJZ0dwCgsQrH hFC0Cti7tQbsuoQ/K+Bu9dY= =68wv -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
