Quoting Emilio Pozuelo Monfort (po...@debian.org): > Christian Perrier wrote: > > I wonder whether we could fork that package and create "our" own one, > > with 2.16.6, only meant for D-I use. > > > > That would at least allow having a graphical installer. Bad hack, I > > admit... > > Fork gtk+ because of a bug? That sounds so weird... Why not fix it instead? ;)
Because of a bug that's blocking a complete part of D-I and could very likely be ignored as it doesn't affect the normal use of GTK+. My proposal goes far beyond this: in D-I we need a stable GTK+ without any real deep need for fancy stuff. We also clearly fail on tracking the consequences of gtk+ packages updates, this bug is a proof of this. That bug might be hard to investigate and solve. My proposal is having, as a temporary measure, maybe, a special gtk+ to only provide the udeb we need in D-I by taking the last version that was working. Such package would only be kept (I can't say "maintained") during the time #557387 is investigated and solved, and it would be here to allow us building a working graphical installer. This is a much "better" solution than disabling g-i and leave the users of over 20 languages in the dark, as well as saying to translators of these languages that we won't be using their work. What I don't know is if this is really possible..:)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
