Is it too late to request distinct names for GNOME 3 packages? For example, IMHO, it would be preferable for the latest GNOME 2 yelp package to be named "yelp" whereas the latest GNOME 3 yelp package would have a name matching "yelp*3". The convention of using distinct names when there are major revisions has been adopted by many other packages. This would be particularly beneficial for GNOME 3 due to the large number of breaking changes that are anticipated. For example, should the fact that using "yelp info:diff" works in version 2.30.1 but not 3.2.1 count as a missing feature or a regression bug? Since the package name did not change, it's not unreasonable to suppose the latter. Similarly for the gnome-system-tools package, does the fact that "time-admin" show time servers in version 2.30.2 but not 3.0.0 count as a missing feature, a feature revision (perhaps the list was intentionally moved elsewhere), or a regression bug?
With the current naming scheme, Wheezy and Sid users could avoid these problems by downgrading some of their GNOME packages to Squeeze and locking versions, but this increases their risk for broken dependencies and for missing Squeeze security updates. With a distinct "gnome-system-tools*3" package, apt-pinning gnome-system-tools would not be necessary. Moreover, if users who are unhappy with the new interface could relatively easily switch from "gnome-desktop-environment*3" back to "gnome-desktop-environment", it would probably reduce attrition to completely alternative environments. Easier switching could also help GNOME developers compare feature sets to ensure that missing features are intentionally excluded. Thanks for considering this. Rob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
