Upload of GNOME 2.6 to unstable

[Jordi Mallach]

--J/dobhs11T7y2rNN
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is a draft of the mail we want to send to the release team to see
if we're able to attempt to get 2.6 in Sarge.

It was written late at night, so sorry for the general crappiness.

Please post any modification you want to make!

------

Hi!

As you know, the Debian GNOME team has been working on packaging
GNOME 2.6 during the last weeks. While many of us didn't count on having
them ready to opt for their inclussion in Sarge when we started, the
situation has changed now that packages are judged to be at least
unstable quality.

We'd like to hear what the release people think about attempting to get
GNOME 2.6 and GTK 2.4 into Sarge immediately. We have a number of
reasons to think that this can be done with hopefully no major
transition problems in Sid/Sarge:

- the packages have had a wide testing, and the -gtk-gnome has been very
  active with user reports of problems that have been fixed.
- the packages have been tested on !i386 thanks to Michel D=E4nzer's
  powerpc builds, which have uncovered some build errors that have also
  been fixed.
- while a few new source packages have been added, the number of sources
  with new binary packages, compared to unstable, is relatively low, as
  most of the splits of data files to -data/-common packages were
  propagated to the GNOME 2.4 packages too.

Before considering an upload to unstable, we would still need to
complete two outstanding TODO items:

- Debian #241706 / GNOME #138454: libeel2 btroke backwards compatibility
- Transition of GConf schemas files to /var

The first issue is serious and needs to be fixed.
For the second, we have a plan that should work transparently and will
allow both the new and old location for schemas work while the
transition is ongoing (something like the /usr/doc transition). There's
no problem if Sarge releases with some of the schemas files in /etc
still. This is not *required*, but very desirable.

Would the release team bless this attempt? The GNOME team thinks we can
make it.

Jordi
--=20
Jordi Mallach P=E9rez  --  Debian developer     http://www.debian.org/
jordi@sindominio.net     jordi@debian.org     http://www.sindominio.net/
GnuPG public key information available at http://oskuro.net/~jordi/

--J/dobhs11T7y2rNN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAftIzJYSUupF6Il4RAqiKAKDgJMNFSOPggzbPVqSWO7FRxaAWPwCfUA3N
amqnzRuij97JZmRE6Kku9Ik=
=KkQK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--J/dobhs11T7y2rNN--