>> Why weren't the new gnome packages named with a "3" in their name, to allow >> both gnome 2 and gnome 3 to exist in the repositories, and allow the user to >> choose which one they want? After all, we had apache and apache2, php4 and >> php5, mysql4 and mysql5, etc, etc. >> >> I'm not saying they should be allowed to be installed at the same time, if >> that would cause problems. I would be perfectly happy if the "gnome3" >> package(s) had a "Conflicts: gnome2" type of entry in the metadata. >> >> Does that seem reasonable? > > It's most probably because GNOME 2's been EOLd upstream. For example, > IIRC, apache1 and apache2 coexisted for sarge and etch because they > were both maintained upstream at the time.
I agree with Tom. As far as I can tell, gnome 2 is no more developed: no support, no bugfixes, no updates... Not surprisingly, there is a gnome 2 fork called Mate (at least, that I'm aware of), but I wouldn't count on it: probably it'll never be included in the official debian repos. When KDE 4 was released, I remember many KDE 3 users were disappointed; to keep KDE 3.5 alive was made a fork called Trinity. Indeed, Trinity Desktop Environment is still active and updated [1], but is not included in the official debian repos, and... have you ever heard of someone using trinity as DE? Personally, no. The past gnome forks all died after a short life (EXDE, GoneME). It's sad, but even if gnome 2/Mate doesn't die, it *probably* will remain a niche product for nostalgics. At least, the odds are against it. I think that basically we have to hope/wait for gnome 3 to get better. Cheers, Lorenzo [1] http://trinitydesktop.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CABqumk8z=ycKT+L354WknPq4xKzJ5yRpW_qzVm8=u--d2l8...@mail.gmail.com
