On Fri, 2013-10-11 at 18:43 -0400, Tom H wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Ralf Mardorf > <ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net> wrote: > > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:42:44 +0200, Tom H <tomh0...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> MATE can be installed alongside other DEs on Fedora so I'm not at all > >> convinced by this MATE-conflicts-with-"common-software" meme! > >> Soneone said upthread that MATE uses GTK2. AFAIK it's being > >> transitioned to GTK3 so it'll then be less of a burden to package it > >> for Debian. > > > > Correct, Mate does a transition to GTK3, but as explained before, it still > > would be a PITA to make packages for official repositories, since you need > > to prevent against such a conflict: > > > > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:43:43 +0200, Alex Moonshine <afterclo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Sorry, but why would one need mate-file-archiver (Engrampa) and > >> file-roller on the same machine? The former is a fork of the latter > >> (and to all practical means just the same package under different > >> name). Same goes for nautilus/caja, gedit/pluma, etc. > >> I think that either you use MATE DE and Engrampa replaces file-roller > >> for you, or, if you want to install MATE on a system that already has > >> some other DE with file-roller installed, that you want to keep, you > >> install mate-base package, which (I believe) includes none of extra > >> applications (and you can go on using file-roller under MATE). > > > > Somebody might want to test GNOME 3 and Mate on the same install. There are > > workarounds. I e.g. didn't install mate-file-archiver and add a link > > /usr/bin/matedialog -> zenity. > > One of the reasons for using a distribution is for its maintainers to > take care of such issues for their users. > > Fedora must've dealt with this issue. (I assume that Mint has too!) > > If Debian were to package MATE, it would do so too. If the Debian > maintainers of two packages can't agree, there's a technical committee > to propose/impose a solution. > > The example that you gave was from Arch; its maintainers simply didn't > do the right thing (in this particular instance, not overall!). That > doesn't mean that MATE is broken or that it breaks other packages.
The Mate repository is definitive _not_ an official Arch repository, IIUC it's provided by Mate upstream. However, an official Arch repositories would follow upstream. Even for distros that do not follow upstream there isn't a technical solution for this issue that could be solved by a committee. -- 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/1381536560.744.15.camel@archlinux