On 11-Dec-2014, Andreas Henriksson wrote: > "No replacement dependency was provided." > > Please see the gnome-photos dependency.
Thank you, I didn't see that.
> That's the reason I didn't drop shotwell when originally adding
> gnome-photos.
It is alarming to see “shotwell” disappearing from the dependencies,
with no mention of what replaces it. This would be better with a
gradual transition:
Version $foo.0.0-1: “Depends: shotwell”
Version $foo.0.1-1: “Depends: shotwell | gnome-photos”
Version $foo.1.0-1: “Depends: gnome-photos | shotwell”
Version $foo.2.0-1: “Depends: gnome-photos”
That is, “shotwell” should not be removed from dependencies until
there has been a clear transition where it is obvious what the
replacement will be, and giving time for users to transition their
existing database of photos to the new photo application.
--
\ “The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold |
`\ in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think |
_o__) differently.” —Friedrich Nietzsche, _The Dawn_, 1881 |
Ben Finney <b...@benfinney.id.au>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
