| 1 |
On 1/9/14, 12:40 AM, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 2 |
> There are reasons for an user to avoid upgrading to GNOME 3: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> one reason is that the introduction of systemd is something the |
| 5 |
> user would not want to go through; whereas you can get a mostly |
| 6 |
> working installation without OpenRC, it is bound to get worse [1]; |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> the other reason is that whereas GNOME 2 used to be light enough |
| 9 |
> to run on older hardware, GNOME 3 has became a much more heavy UI |
| 10 |
> both in terms of CPU, Memory and GPU; so, people with older |
| 11 |
> computers that upgrade are presented with a regressed broken system. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I think they are valid reasons for the users. However, I think Gentoo |
| 14 |
maintainability also needs to be considered. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It's not obvious to me whether it's the right time to go to Council with |
| 17 |
this. What does Gentoo gnome team say? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> So, both of these reasons yield a lot of trouble [3] because GNOME 3 |
| 20 |
> went stable in the same slot as GNOME 2; therefore, an user that wishes |
| 21 |
> to stick with GNOME 2 needs to assure he correctly puts a mask on any |
| 22 |
> GNOME 3 related ebuild. While this would be easy for the obvious main |
| 23 |
> GNOME packages with >=3, it's less obvious to do this on random |
| 24 |
> libraries which have other version numbers than 3.x. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Can this be solved with some gnome2 profile? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> 1. Will removing GNOME 2 when it becomes unmaintainable upset users? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Pretty sure yes, as always with things like that. However, sometimes we |
| 31 |
just can't do much. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> 2. What can we do to satisfy users that want to stick to GNOME 2? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> 2.a. Bring a fork like MATE to the Portage tree? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Up to relevant maintainers I think. :) |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> 2.b. Split off GNOME 2 to a different SLOT, category or name? |
| 40 |
> Can we still do this at this point in time? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Same as above. Please also see |
| 43 |
<http://www.gentoo.org/news/20091104-kde3-deprecation-notice.xml> - |
| 44 |
maybe having an overlay or repo for gnome2 would work better than trying |
| 45 |
to keep it alive in portage. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> 3. How can we prevent this from happening in the future? |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Probably not much we can do - upstreams do things like that all the time. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Stabilization is another thing. My understanding is Gentoo gnome team |
| 52 |
signed off on this. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> 4. Is a news item needed for this situation? To suggest alternatives? |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
News item would be nice indeed. Up to Gentoo gnome team IMHO. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Paweł |
Archives