Re: KDE3 - Debian/experimental distribution proposal (was: yes i am alive ;)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sunday 13 October 2002 12:25 pm, Ralf Nolden wrote:
> Now, let's please be reasonable about what can be done easily and what is
> desireable. Have a quick look at the current state:
Could I just clarify something about objectives. It seems to me that there
are two slightly different objectives which should drive the way the effort
is organised. It seems to me a desire to handle the gcc 3.2 transition is
somehow preventing the second objective being met.
The two objectives are
1) From a kde perspective, ensuring the debian community has an up to date
version of kde.
Given this perspective the idea is to provide debs from kde.org
a) To support woody as the primary underlying system but presumably also the
other sets of debian systems (ie from debian's testing or unstable sections)
with the latest stable version of kde
b) Later, providing "bleeding edge" .debs though an automated approach on
Given these two perspectives the current approach of using kde.org seems well
founded. Just one minor thing ...
Would it be possible to avoid putting the release number in the directory
heirarchy - so that the sources.list line has to be edited for each release.
Just use the distinction between stable (currently 3.0.4 - presumably in the
not too distant future 3.1) and unstable (currently 3.1 beta 2 - but, could
be regular snapshots of cvs if the package build could be automated).
2) From a debian perspective of having a full range of kde options (stable,
testing and unstable) in a standard debian archive so that anyone building a
debian system has a knowledge of where to find what he is looking for.
a) Woody remains super stable and at the moment remains kde 2.2
b) Sarge ideally should have a relatively recent but stable kde (ie kde
3.0.3/4). Unfortunately nothing gets into sarge that has not been in
unstable for a while is getting into unstable therefore nothing is flowing to
c) Sid - unstable. I was looking at the CVS debian/control file for qt
earlier this week and it looked as though it was being set up to create
separate package names for the gcc 3.2 packages - so that ultimately it would
be possible for 2.95 and 3.2 packages to sit side by side in the distribution
(although the user would only be able to pick one set because of conflicts)
What I don't understand is why qt/kde packages compiled with gcc 2.95 (ie
precisely those currently up on kde.org as 3.0.4) could not flow into
unstable now whilst the work to create these extra packages gets completed at
which point the debian release number gets incremented and a whole new set of
packages appear from the same source build.
The other question I raise is, is there a way that all the other talent out
there who have created these other sites with packages on could join in the
work to make the transition to 3.2 more quickly (does it need cvs access or
could a mailing list be created where people could post patches).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----