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

Re: Debian KDE maintainer burnout??? (was: Warning)

Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 31 Dec 2002 7:57 am, Ben Burton wrote:
> Thus, again with the exception of Karolina's debs, the only work that is
> in theory duplicated is the actual compilation which really *has* to be
> duplicated since the various archives are built in different
> environments (woody vs sid, gcc-2.95 vs gcc-3.2, etc).

I would also like to add my thanks to everyone who is producing these debs.  I 
have an environment on my machine to build them too - very manually and 
relying on the work everyone else in terms of the debian directory.  Even so, 
I took about a month to get a complete set of gcc3.2 compiled debs.  I gave 
up when then update to qt went back to be 2.95 compiled and the Ralf's 
started re-appearing at kde.org. [And I don't have access to sufficient 
outside web enabled disk space to publish mine]

I did so out of the pure frustration of not seeing them in the debian unstable 
archive.  What I STILL don't understand is why a gcc 2.95 set of debs could 
not have been added to unstable (presumable the 3.0.x ones) sometime ago - so 
that by now they had at least flowed through to sarge. Reading the plan for 
gcc 3.2 transition - this could just as well been applied to libarts and 
kdelibs so as to have a smooth update when the decision to throw the switch 
was _eventually_ made.

Where is the switch to gcc3.2 discussed?  I am subscribed to debian-devel, and 
have looked in the archive in debian-gcc but there is not much there.  There 
seems to be very little discussion here too.

- -- 
Alan Chandler
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: