[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: What is keeping 'kde' metapackage out of Woody?

--- Chris Cheney <ccheney@cheney.cx> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 03:32:24PM -0800, tluxt wrote:
> > 1) What is package kde?  I've heard of kde-base, and the 'kde' 
> > metapackage, but not a 'regular' package called 'kde'.
> > 2) Is a bug of level 'important' able to keep a package out of W?
> 1) kde is a meta package that depends on other packages but does nothing
> itself.

Um, ok, but why are there these two different pages?  
These make it seem like there is both a package "kde", and 
a package "meta-kde" that are different packages. 
Do these two different URL, referring to both "package kde" 
& "source meta-kde" refer to the same, or different things/packages?:

Link http://bugs.debian.org/kde actually pulls up page
Debian Bug report logs: package kde

Looking at the above mentioned kde metapackage page we find
Debian Bug report logs: source meta-kde

> It takes a bug of severity serious or above to keep a package out of
> Woody unless the package's depends are not yet met. (There are few other
> small rules but they do not apply here.)
> See this url for more details:
> http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_excuses.html

I guess the relevant item here is "meta-kde", right?

> > So, what, exactly, needs to be done to get the kde metapackage into
> Woody?
> > ?????

So, it's not the "important" level bug holding meta-kde up,
it's all those depends, right?

Yow!  That looks like a _lot_ of work needing to be done on meta-kde!
All those things have to go away before meta-kde can get into W, right?

Who does the work of getting all those packages built for all those
different processors?  You?  Someone who supports those other processors?
If you, when do you think you'll have all that work done?

alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc

Seriously: Is it _worth_ doing all that effort?????

If that is what Debian is, or has to have done for it,
perhaps it is time to fork Debian, and perhaps build for only
the 1,2 or at most 3 processors with the largest user base for
Debian users. 
(Maybe i386 & whatever apple uses for their laptops (powerpc?)
and whatever the handhelds use (arm?).)
(How much effort is necessary, and how many potential users are gained,
by having to do builds for alpha, hppa, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, s390, 
Or, at least only build KDE for those 1-3 processors.  If someone else
wants to build a Debian Linux base for servers for all those processors,
that's fine.  And, if they also want KDE for any of those platforms,
great, they should be free to use their time building them.

> I am going to be putting meta packages into each source package for kde,
> so there will be for example a kdelibs package that depends on specific
> version of kdelibs3, kdelibs-bin, libarts, libarts-kde.  That can then
> be depended on by the kde meta-package. This will keep kde for needing
> to change, and any time a new package is uploaded (like kdelibs) its meta
> package will automatically be updated as well.

Ok, whatever you say.  :)

> Does this sound good?

I think you could mean:
1) Is this all understandable?
  A: The first parts, but I'm not knowledgeable enough currently about
    package building to comment on your meta-package plans.
2) Are my plans to "be putting meta packages into each source package for 
  kde" a good idea:
  A: I'm in no position to judge the wisdom or "goodness" of that.

But, I do think it is a substantial poor investment of time if you have
to build (& debug any build problems with) KDE for all those processors!

Really:  Is that something that has to be done by you?  Is there any way
that (unuseful, IMHO) effort can be avoided?

Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions! 

Reply to: