On Monday 16 February 2004 08:26 am, Bruce Miller wrote: > On February 16, 2004 10:34, Robert Tilley wrote: > > I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE 3.2.0 > > existing in the "stable" distribution while missing from the > > "unstable" or "testing" branches. > > > > I will have to give the KDE Team minus points on this one. While we > > all greatly appreciate the improvements in KDE 3.2, having to run > > stable (with the corresponding lack of software) is an impediment. > > -- > > Comments are appreciated, > > I am sympathetic to your point of view but cannot entirely agree. > > The main hold-up to getting 3.2 into unstable is getting 3.1.5 out of > unstable. Remember that Debian requires that its packages work on > eleven different architectures; something that (we) users of i386 > sometimes overlook. > Do we _have_ to have KDE 3.1 working in platforms like M68000? I doubt that old chip family has the horsepower to handle KDE.