This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek said:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 12:08:53PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > The other question is, is this acceptable - that is, can I allow a build
> > failure on three architectures for a few {weeks,days}, or is that just
> > deemed too lazy? My personal feeling is that if the new compiler and
> > KDE3 aren't due in sid within about two weeks, I should go ahead and try
> > to deal with the source changes. This involves a fair amount of
> > research for me, so I wanted to ask other's opinions before I started
> > mucking about with it.
>
> Various people have stated an intention to make gcc 3.x (for x >= 2) the
> default compiler for sarge. If upstream already has a new version of the
> package that works with g++ 3.x and KDE3, I wouldn't recommend that you
> spend a lot of time trying to get your current version of the package to
> work with gcc 3.x -- especially since, on alpha at least, you *can't*
> compile Qt-based packages using g++ 3.x.
OK, last question, I swear 8^). The current version is kcdlabel_2.7-3.
Upstream has named their port to KDE3 kcdlabel-2.7-KDE3, so how do I go
about this? kcdlabel_2.7-KDE3-1? -4? Or something else like
kcdlabel-KDE3_2.7-1 (although this would make it a new package name, and
I would have to use replaces/provides fields, I suppose)? I prefer
something like the first one, but it would have been simpler if upstream
just went to 2.8 - it's a fairly large code change, although no feature
change. I suppose as a last resort I could use
kcdlabel_2.8-really2.7-KDE3-1, but I dislike that in principal.
Thanks in advance,
Steve
> Steve Langasek
> postmodern programmer
--
How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
One to hold the giraffe and one to fill the bathtub with brightly colored
power tools.
Attachment:
pgpmGylCVQISc.pgp
Description: PGP signature