Re: status of KDE of 3.4 (3.5?)
On Saturday 24 December 2005 05:06 pm, Itai Seggev wrote:
> Dear KDE maintainer people:
>
> I am confused by the current of KDE in the archives. I've tried
> looking through the archives of this list and debian-qt-kde, but
> haven't really found answers to my questions, so here goes:
>
> 1) I see that 3.5 has been uploaded to experimental. I presume this
> means that the plan is still to get 3.4 into etch first, then worry
> about 3.5, yes?
Well, 3.4.2 is in etch already. The current plan is to get the c2a
transitioned packages into etch (which means KDE 3.4.3), then upload 3.5 to
unstable. Until then, any testing of 3.5 from experimental by users of
unstable is greatly appreciated.
> 2) kdebase, kdemultimedia, and kdenetwork have failed to compiled
> twice on hppa. Is this due some bugin the KDE packages that will be
> fixed in an upcoming upload? Along these lines, what does the message
> "should ignore, but forced by vorlon" mean?
This is due to a bug/bugs in gcc on hppa. Once they are fixed, these kde
packages can be binNMUed on hppa by the release team. "should ignore, but
forced by vorlon" means that vorlon (Steve Langasek) has added a hint for
the testing migration scripts to try to force KDE and all the related
packages into testing for the c2a migration. "should ignore" means the
testing migration scripts shouldn't even consider the package. "forced by
vorlon" means he is overriding that and telling them to consider it anyway.
> 3) What conditions are needed before the "2a" kde makes it into etch?
> Are just waiting for everything to compile on all architectures? Any
> idea when this will happen?
Enough packages need to be ready to go into testing such that there are
feweer uninstallable packages in testing once they all go in. This is a
large number of packages that all need to be ready at the same time. Note
that ready in this case doesn't always mean waiting the set 10 days or even
being built on all architectures if the release team thinks it is best to
force them in at some point.
> Again, I apologize if the answers to these questions should be all
> terribly obvious, but I'm confused nonetheless.
>
> Thanks for your time,
You're welcome, and Merry Christmas,
Josh
Reply to: