Re: Qt versioning (was: KDE 3.1.2 broken)
>> A workaround is documented on http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DebianKDE
>
Thanks for the link. I might need it after the next freeze!
>Sure, but there's no specific reason that people should know to look
>here once it breaks, other than doing random web or mailing list
>searches. Upgrades should Just Work.
>
This will probably be a big problem. But upgrades will only work if they
stick with the Official debian repositories. Packages from other sources,
especially unofficial ones, are just not expected to work. But try telling
that to all the people who will have problems with this.
>Perhaps Ralf and Madkiss have a greater plan here that I just don't
>understand.
>
I don't think so. Ralf did a great service providing these from his own
work and free time, but I don't think he expected them to intigrate cleanly
with the rest of Debian.
This brings up something I've been thinking about for a while now:
With the long release cycles of Debian, and especially the way it always
seems to be poorly timed with other major releases, I.E. KDE, XFree86,
Gnome etc, maybe the Debian people should look at spitting the releases up
to allow a more up-to-date Debian.
Rather than releasing the entire system at one time, and then working on
the next entire system, they could split it into major sections like: Base,
XFree86, KDE, Gnome, etc. Each would work on building against the current
stable version of the rest of the system. After all, KDE is releasing
KDE-3.1.2 debs for stable, Brandan, Daniel Stone and others are releasing
up-dated XFree86 packages for stable. If Debian was split properly, then
all Debian users can enjoy more up-to-date systems without having to risk
testing packages.
Periodically, they could work on syncing the different parts for major
changes like the GCC-3.1 upgrade and such, but otherwise let each part
advance on it's own. This would prevent unofficial packages such as the new
KDE ones that will cause so many headaches during the next freeze.
Just a thought.
Cheers,
John Gay
Reply to: