On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 11:03:46PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > So why do you expect its packagers to fork or take over upstream of > gdm?
i'm not. i'm merely expecting them not to remove a useful package for no good reason. > >>> OK, the actual issues here are Gnome's fault but prematurely removing > >>> gdm from debian is debian's fault. > >> > >> No, it's not. > > > > yes it is. was there any actual need to remove gdm? it has existed in > > the debian repository alongside gdm3 for ages. it doesn't conflict with > > the current gnome libs (it's still installed and working on systems > > built before gdm was removed). > > There is no upstream anymore... 'there is no upstream' is not a reasonable answer to 'was there any actual need to remove gdm?'. there are hundreds of packages in debian without an upstream. > > i prefer option four: submit a bug report to debian saying that the > > removal of gdm from debian was a mistake and should be reversed. > > Which is pointless unless you find someone that wants to take over > upstream. how about just leave the damn gdm package in debian until and unless it actually causes a problem that can't easily be worked around? right now, the current gdm 2.20.11-4 is causing no problem at all. it doesn't conflict with any other gnome stuff. so why the big hurry to remove it? craig -- craig sanders <c...@taz.net.au> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
