On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:27:54 -0800, Kevin Ross wrote: > 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 think the upstream GNOME team decided to follow that path (instead doing what KDE did, that is, keeping both branches separated -3.x and 4.x) because old GTK+2 based applications can be run from GNOME3 without much code editing so the migration was made with many of us unnoticing the change. > 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? To me, yes, seems very reasonable and even desirable because that would have done users very happy. But I'ms afraid doing this had generated a lot of work for Debian GNOME maintainers and resources (in the form of people and time) are always scarce so in the end, I prefer to have a well- done, well-tested and full-featured GNOME3 and gnome-shell than a half- made/tested GNOME3+gnome-shell and a partially supported GNOME2 :-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- 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/pan.2011.11.16.17.24...@gmail.com
