On Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 04:55:23PM +0100, Christian Marillat wrote: > Ari Pollak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > [Please CC me.] > > > I apologize for not seeing that, there were no objections directly sent > > to the ITP bug, and when I checked the debian-devel archives at the time > > there were no objections either. I did not want to NMU or adopt the > > existing gdm package, as the maintainer still seemed to be active, just > > somewhat ignoring the new gdm releases. I'll go ahead and file an ITA > > An ITA mean Intent To Adopt, and no the current gdm maintainer doesn't > maintain this package. The current maintainer is may be active for > its others Debian jobs (ftpadmin, mipsel buildd) but not for this > package. > > If you do an ITA please add a Cc: to -devel and to the maintainer.
Erm, ... As i understood it, from a mail to this list a month or so ago, the gdm maintainer said that he would not upload a gdm 2.4 package because it is not considered stable on some arches. I have no idea if this is still true or not, but in any case, if it is true, then uploading a gdm2 package may be an intermediary solution. Sure we decided to not use the 2 suffix, but it may be meaningfull to make an exception here instead of hijacking the gdm package. We can change it back to gdm alone before the release, and in the meantime have the gnome metapackage depend on gdm2 or something. This would be way better than the current situation, where everyone is using unofficial gdm2 packages from diverse sources, does not fill bug reports, and as a result gdm2 does not get the testing it deserves. Sure, if a gdm 2.4 package would be uploaded, it would be better, but we should not hide behind the 'don't use the 2 suffix' to avoid taking a decision on this. Friendly, Sven Luther
