On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:07:10 -0600 William Pitcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
WP> On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 00:55 +0100, Vadim Zeitlin wrote: WP> > And, seeing from your signature that you're both a Debian and Ubuntu WP> > developer, I'd like to notice that Ubuntu doesn't seem to find WP> > anything WP> > catastrophic with shipping wx2.8 which it does since quite some time. WP> WP> So Ubuntu ships wx2.8. It doesn't matter to us. The fact that Ubuntu WP> does ______________ is not generally considered a valid argument for WP> justifying that Debian does the same. Yes, I know this and it was never my intention to imply that this alone was sufficient. But it did, and still does, sound strange to me that Ubuntu people didn't find any of those apparently numerous and unavoidable fatal bugs which wx2.8 is so full of. WP> What you should be telling us is why we should be shipping wx2.8 over WP> wx2.6 which is considered by many to be more proven than wx2.8. Could we please bring any facts in this discussion? I replied to a message stating, without any supporting arguments, that wx2.8 was unsuitable to be used. You make a less strong but still fairly significant claim that wx2.6 is considered by many to be better than wx2.8. Could you please tell who those "many" are and why do "they" consider this? It's very difficult to prove that you're innocent when you don't know what do you stand accused of. WP> I am sure if you can come up with valid reasons to do so (especially WP> identifying critical apps which require wx2.8 features is useful here), WP> that we will be happy to provide wx2.8. I don't know how critical these apps are but several of them have been mentioned previously by different people. In particular, if you appreciate using Debian as a development platform, the fact that CodeBlocks can't be built on it is IMHO a pretty critical problem. And even if a program doesn't require wx2.8 it will still work better with it than with wx2.6. Moreover, wx2.6 is officially unmaintained since 1.5 years (and in practice for longer) and any future bug fixes will be done only in wx2.8. But more generally I thought that it was in the order of things for old versions of programs and libraries to be replaced with newer ones in newer Debian releases. I didn't realize there was a need to provide a special argument for the upgrade, I rather thought that the problem was that wx2.8 was (erroneously and, AFAICS, due to the efforts of one and single person) deemed to be too broken to be upgraded to in spite of numerous requests here and in the BTS to do it. If this is not the case I don't think I can provide an argument more compelling than the ones already expressed before. So, once again, I can only propose to help to bring wx2.8 to Debian. If this is deemed to be unnecessary -- so be it. I'd just appreciate if the decision not to include wx2.8 in Debian could be formulated as being due to lack of reasons to upgrade and not as being due to "wx2.8 being totally unsuitable for application development" which is completely slanderous but unfortunately carries a lot of weight when it comes from the official wx Debian maintainer. Thanks, VZ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
