Re: Debian KDE maintainer burnout??? (was: Warning)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 31 Dec 2002 7:57 am, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> Thus, again with the exception of Karolina's debs, the only work that is
> in theory duplicated is the actual compilation which really *has* to be
> duplicated since the various archives are built in different
> environments (woody vs sid, gcc-2.95 vs gcc-3.2, etc).
>
I would also like to add my thanks to everyone who is producing these debs. I
have an environment on my machine to build them too - very manually and
relying on the work everyone else in terms of the debian directory. Even so,
I took about a month to get a complete set of gcc3.2 compiled debs. I gave
up when then update to qt went back to be 2.95 compiled and the Ralf's
started re-appearing at kde.org. [And I don't have access to sufficient
outside web enabled disk space to publish mine]
I did so out of the pure frustration of not seeing them in the debian unstable
archive. What I STILL don't understand is why a gcc 2.95 set of debs could
not have been added to unstable (presumable the 3.0.x ones) sometime ago - so
that by now they had at least flowed through to sarge. Reading the plan for
gcc 3.2 transition - this could just as well been applied to libarts and
kdelibs so as to have a smooth update when the decision to throw the switch
was _eventually_ made.
Where is the switch to gcc3.2 discussed? I am subscribed to debian-devel, and
have looked in the archive in debian-gcc but there is not much there. There
seems to be very little discussion here too.
- --
Alan Chandler
alan@chandlerfamily.org.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+EZekuFHxcV2FFoIRAmTXAJ0WecOTRaRFMJhDdsk1NKs6uIoUJQCePjD9
VgAXA8Me/5BH8lz2ylknajM=
=AwgQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: