Havoc Pennington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
> >
> > maybe a compromise would be to leave the packages in slink, make sure
> > the Description: field highlights their alpha status, and automatically
> > close all non-packaging bugs (and forward them up
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> maybe a compromise would be to leave the packages in slink, make sure
> the Description: field highlights their alpha status, and automatically
> close all non-packaging bugs (and forward them upstream if it makes
> sense to do so).
>
I hope this is
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 02:24:53PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote:
> IMHO it is not appropriate to ship beta software under the guise of
> release software. If it is really desirable to ship gnome, it sould
> be categorized as ALPHA and installed only when a user explicitly
> requests it.
I wonder wh
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 05:29:11PM -0500, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Whether or not a program sucks or is alpha has never been a criteria for
> inclusion or noninclusion in Debian, as far as I know. Debian evaluates
> only the quality and policy conformance of the *package*, not the
> *packaged prog
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 04:02:41PM -0500, Stephen Crowley wrote:
> That is ridiculous, there is no reason to remove gnome before the freeze, if
> you
> dont like it dont use it. There are several programs that wont run without it,
> including GtkICQ which is about the only usuable icq replacement
Hi,
Doesn't the version number convey the alpha nature to people?
Like, it isn't even version 1.0?
Anyway, seeing that it is the maintainer who is asking for the
removal, and the fact that I am not that much of a GNOME user (I fail
to see the point, so far), I withdraw my obje
On 16 Oct 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> If we are going to staret removing packages because of the quality of
> the software, wonderful. I move to remove all traces of the travesty
> of editors, vi, from Debian, since obviously as editors they are less
> than alpha quality software.
and we shou
Hi,
>>"Brian" == Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm not sure if it's a good idea to release them as a part of a
>> "stable" distribution, as they really aren't. There aren't any
>> guarantees that the stuff that runs today is going to run tomorrow.
Brian> I would agree with you.
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Stephen Crowley wrote:
crow>That is ridiculous, there is no reason to remove gnome before the freeze,
if you
FWIW, one of the slashdot commenters on the slink-freeze, commends
slink for including gnome ( he did install the packages, too) .
John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTE
On Thu, 15 Oct 1998, Marc Singer wrote:
>
> I think that keeping it on the CD is spurious because the CD
> represents what we know works. Packages that don't work can be
> downloaded from the FTP servers by the people who want to fuss with
> them. Gnome is high profile because it has fancy scre
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 04:02:41PM -0500, Stephen Crowley wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 08:32:02AM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> > > What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff?
> > >
> > > The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
> > > current packages in Slink
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 08:32:02AM -0400, Brian White wrote:
> > What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff?
> >
> > The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
> > current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of
> > things don't work. It sounds l
> What do you think we should do with the Gnome stuff?
>
> The Gnome 0.30 stuff is still under rather heavy development. The
> current packages in Slink are pretty much alpha-quality. Lots of
> things don't work. It sounds like there will probably be a 1.0
> release coming up in a few months th
13 matches
Mail list logo
