From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD7E138247 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:23:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 73C46E0ACD; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:23:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBD7DE0AA4 for ; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:23:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from phjr-macbookpro.local (77-255-60-223.adsl.inetia.pl [77.255.60.223]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: phajdan.jr) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B353133BDD3; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 08:23:24 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <52CE5C79.2070307@gentoo.org> Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 09:23:21 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?IlBhd2XFgiBIYWpkYW4sIEpyLiI=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org CC: gnome@gentoo.org, qa@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Sticking to GNOME 2 complicated after regressive GNOME 3 stabilization. References: <21192.25853.372116.249167@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20140109004039.08a7e814@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <20140109004039.08a7e814@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hctrwlTv9TJIdOGPDnaq5wAjcd3hiO1US" X-Archives-Salt: adc63445-3280-4a92-8517-58e1cf478195 X-Archives-Hash: 0f54985a501dc06f3be16793dceab587 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --hctrwlTv9TJIdOGPDnaq5wAjcd3hiO1US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 1/9/14, 12:40 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > There are reasons for an user to avoid upgrading to GNOME 3: >=20 > one reason is that the introduction of systemd is something the > user would not want to go through; whereas you can get a mostly > working installation without OpenRC, it is bound to get worse [1]; >=20 > the other reason is that whereas GNOME 2 used to be light enough > to run on older hardware, GNOME 3 has became a much more heavy UI > both in terms of CPU, Memory and GPU; so, people with older > computers that upgrade are presented with a regressed broken system= =2E I think they are valid reasons for the users. However, I think Gentoo maintainability also needs to be considered. It's not obvious to me whether it's the right time to go to Council with this. What does Gentoo gnome team say? > So, both of these reasons yield a lot of trouble [3] because GNOME 3 > went stable in the same slot as GNOME 2; therefore, an user that wishes= > to stick with GNOME 2 needs to assure he correctly puts a mask on any > GNOME 3 related ebuild. While this would be easy for the obvious main > GNOME packages with >=3D3, it's less obvious to do this on random > libraries which have other version numbers than 3.x. Can this be solved with some gnome2 profile? > 1. Will removing GNOME 2 when it becomes unmaintainable upset users? Pretty sure yes, as always with things like that. However, sometimes we just can't do much. > 2. What can we do to satisfy users that want to stick to GNOME 2? >=20 > 2.a. Bring a fork like MATE to the Portage tree? Up to relevant maintainers I think. :) > 2.b. Split off GNOME 2 to a different SLOT, category or name? > Can we still do this at this point in time? Same as above. Please also see - maybe having an overlay or repo for gnome2 would work better than trying to keep it alive in portage. > 3. How can we prevent this from happening in the future? Probably not much we can do - upstreams do things like that all the time.= Stabilization is another thing. My understanding is Gentoo gnome team signed off on this. > 4. Is a news item needed for this situation? To suggest alternatives? News item would be nice indeed. Up to Gentoo gnome team IMHO. Pawe=C5=82 --hctrwlTv9TJIdOGPDnaq5wAjcd3hiO1US Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAlLOXHkACgkQuUQtlDBCeQKXZACbBkiqcq78OTCbO0oiBH8TrJSn IOIAn0zS/pFGg+EeXV7vQsjhDLE9G0gG =fEM1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hctrwlTv9TJIdOGPDnaq5wAjcd3hiO1US--