On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:


As this reaction is quite common, maybe I should make things more clear.

* Yes, GTK+ 1.2 is going away before the squeeze release. *

If everyone says “I’m going to remove my pet package when it is the last
one�, it is obvious that we are never going to remove it.


I don't read Tim's message like this. I read: Just remove GTK+ 1.2 and once
this is done my pet package becomes RC buggy. The fix for the bug is removing
the package. That's quite simple and Tim in this message agrees to this
procedure (as well as I did).

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote:

> Can we, therefore, just say that unless maintainers remove the package
> themselves after the Lenny release, all reverse dependencies of gtk1.2
> and gtk1.2 itself will be removed from Debian during the month before
> the expected announcement of the Squeeze toolchain freeze? i.e. at the
> earliest stage of the Squeeze release process. (No delays would be
> accepted for this removal either, it would be unavoidable and no
> complaints would be entertained, no matter what.) I'm happy to help get
> rid of gtk1.2.

I think it would be better to remove gtk1.2 and it's reverse
dependencies as soon as the 'squeeze' codename exists. That would give
people more time and (more importantly) motivation to work on porting
apps. People will inevitably complain, perhaps removing them from
testing first and unstable a few months later would be best.

--
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 02:12:04PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le jeudi 11 d??cembre 2008 ?? 11:46 +0100, Tim Dijkstra a ??crit :

> > It still works, some people still use it... so I do not see any need
> > to remove it now. If the time comes to remove gtk+1.2, digitaldj can
> > go too IYAM. I'm not using it anymore, and certainly do not have the
> > time to port it.

> As this reaction is quite common, maybe I should make things more clear.

> * Yes, GTK+ 1.2 is going away before the squeeze release. *

> If everyone says ???I???m going to remove my pet package when it is the last
> one???, it is obvious that we are never going to remove it.

I don't see any conflict here - all people are saying is that they'd
rather do the removal of the dependant packages when GTK+ 1.2 is
actually being removed from the archive. There appears to be relatively
little opposition to the idea of removing GTK+ 1.2 itself. Possibly a
good way to proceed here is to just remove GTK+ 1.2 shortly after lenny
is released, unless we do actually identify any critical packages that
still depend on it?

--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:42:08 +0100 (CET)
Andreas Tille <tillea@rki.de> wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>
> > As this reaction is quite common, maybe I should make things more clear.
> >
> > * Yes, GTK+ 1.2 is going away before the squeeze release. *
> >
> > If everyone says “I’m going to remove my pet package when it is the last
> > one�, it is obvious that we are never going to remove it.
>
> I don't read Tim's message like this. I read: Just remove GTK+ 1.2 and once
> this is done my pet package becomes RC buggy. The fix for the bug is removing
> the package. That's quite simple and Tim in this message agrees to this
> procedure (as well as I did).

Indeed, that is what Tim meant to write

grts Tim

On 2008-12-05 19:06 +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote:

> OHURA Makoto <ohura@debian.org>
> xemacs21
> => maybe we need to wait for emacs23

I'm not sure that hardcore XEmacs users can be convinced to switch to
Emacs, even if Emacs 23 will provide the necessary eye-candy that is
lacking from Emacs 22. The differences in operating concept philosophy
and the Lisp implementations are rather large.

The good news is that while XEmacs is unlikely to be ported to GTK+ 2.0
anytime soon, support for GTK+ 1.2 is optional and XEmacs can be built
without it, so xemacs21 will not have to be removed, only the
xemacs21-gnome* packages have to go.

Sven,
not an XEmacs user


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

>
> GTK+ 1.2 has been deprecated upstream for 6 years. There is no security
> support for it, and no new applications using it have been out for quite
> a long time as well.
>
>
> Here is a first list of packages that could either be removed right now
> because they seem to have replacements, or updated with little work. If
> there are no objections, I think we should ask for removal of all of
> those which don’t have a GTK+ 2 version.
>
>
> Drew Parsons <dparsons@debian.org>
> zangband
> => yay, a rogue game

zangband has features not present in other rogue clones, namely an
outdoor wilderness environment connecting different towns and different
dungeons.

The chief charm of the rogue clones is their beautiful ascii animation.
To my mind the gtk interface is a step backwards which defeats the
point of these dumb but addictive little games.

There is no need to remove zangband, we can simply drop the gtk build
instead if required.

Drew



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org