Re: gconftool*

on Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 01:01:25PM +0200, Stelian Ionescu ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2005 at 01:46:36AM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> [snip]
> >Um.  How does lack of a manpage for gconftool-1 not have anything to do
> >with GNOME?

> there would be the "unsignificant" fact that gnome 1.* is no longer
> under development nor maintained

I _was_ going to (and I'm sure this will come as a shock to all present)
write a sarcastic post about capriciously dropping support for libs
which are still used by some applications.  Then I decided to check
deps:

    $ dpkg-awk Depends:libgconf11 -- Package 
    Package: libgnome-vfs-common
    Package: libgda0
    Package: gconf
    Package: libgnome-vfs0
    Package: bonobo-conf

Hrm.  Just libs and support packages.


Thanks, I've nuked all gconf1 support from my system, let's see if
anything breaks....


I'm still not comfortable with the "it's not being supported or
maintained" justification -- the manpage should have been written in the
first place, and should have been provided after the bug was filed.
I'll also wager there's systems running gconf1-dependent apps now, and
will be for some time into the future.  Which is where my unwritten
sarcastic reply comparing your comments to Microsoft's EOLing of various
platforms and programming languages was headed.  But we're not going
there.

Thanks.


Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <[email protected]>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
  Information is not power after all: Old-fashioned power is power. If you
  aren't big industry or government, you have very little power. Once they've
  hacked the electronic voting system, you'll have no power at all.
  - Robert X. Cringely

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCSJFfefG8443k044RAgRMAJ46r50NJrTW8MIckvJmunBw02P6WQCcCrLs
4EbAS77SiJ6NNfvWG2MAMFQ=
=Ejok
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----