On Wednesday, October 05, 2011 09:30:22 PM Sebastien Bacher wrote: > Le mercredi 05 octobre 2011 à 16:08 +0200, Matthias Klose a écrit : > > During the oneiric development cycle we had syncs of library packages > > from > > experimental, introducing new sonames, and changing APIs in a way that > > other > > Hi, > > The issue is not really specific to experimental, that could happen the > same way with updates done in Ubuntu directly or syncs from unstable. > > While I agree that people who start a transition should have some > responsibilities in it I also think that we should be ok with dropping > unmaintained code which is not ported at the end of the cycle (and not > especially require that whoever started the transition has to be the one > that should fix the universe). > > If we had the resources to both push forward our default installation > with the softwares most users care and port the universe it would be > great but in really we don't and I think we shouldn't let universe > crufts stop use to improve the default experience. > To take an example I think porting universe GNOME2 applets to GNOME3 > wouldn't be a good use of our time, we better spend the resources we > have making sure our current desktop version is great. > If some people want to work on porting the applications they care about, > great, otherwise the source can be dropped and will come back once its > upstream or somebody else pick it up and update the code.
I think Gnome2 -> Gnome3 is an exceptional case where that is particularly true. In general either all that's needed are rebuilds or digging for patches. I think if we're going to do a transition the developer needs to at least follow through and try to deal with Universe and file bugs where things fail. I don't think just fixing Main and then saying "Meh, Univierse, Whatever" is appropriate. Scott K -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel