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

Re: KDE3 - Debian/experimental distribution proposal (was: yes i am alive ;)

Hash: SHA1

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).

- -- 
Alan Chandler
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: