Re: Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian
Luk Claes <luk <at> zomers.be> writes:
> Well Debian has another focus than Fedora Core, I won't comment further
> on the implications...
I'm not qualified to comment on that either. However, I was simply demonstrating
that other distributions found it possible to integrate within the time window.
> It seems that you don't understand why we call it an XMMS replacement:
> it's not at all about having all the same features, it's about the core
> functionality. If we consider audacious an XMMS replacement it means
> that we think audacious is as good or even better then XMMS for the core
> functionality. If you don't like audacious to get many more users
> because of it, we might indeed consider other replacements...
>
It's not that we don't like having a userbase, it's that Audacious is
philosophically different from XMMS which may result in a high support case load
upon XMMS being replaced with Audacious, and people saying bad things about
Audacious because it's "not like XMMS".
I have observed that people consider the phrase "XMMS replacement" to be
synonymous to "XMMS clone", which results in unnecessary support cases
concerning deviations in featureset.
What somebody should do is propose to take Audacious 1.2 (since it is more like
XMMS than other offerings we have) and mix it with XMMS, and then ask XMMS
upstream what they feel. If they go for it, then everyone is happy, are they
not? Because while XMMS is indeed different, Audacious could be a decent basis
for a GTK2 XMMS release series (call it XMMS 1.3 or something, since XMMS2 is
something else clearly). That is what I would like to see happen, anyway.
William
Reply to: