Re: kde 4.6.4 backports
Hi Martin
Wow! thanks! I wouldn't have imagine that packages were available somewhere!
You should register on apt-get.org.
I am interested to help backport kde packages. I curently have access to a
dual AMD opteron, octo-core, 2,5GHz with 8 Giga of ram per CPU (16 Go in
total). The server is running latest stable AMD64. So I can compile!
How did you proceed to backport? Hrvoje Senjan said that basically he has
just taken the packages from testing and recompile them. Is that you have
done?
Best regards,
Xavier
Martin Alfke wrote:
> I have made _unofficial_ backports from wheezy KDE packages.
> Unluckily i did not have the possibilty to test KDE 4.6 - I only testet
> fresh Installation on squeeze. Packages are available on
> debian-desktop.org There are also live iso images for amd64 and i386 which
> you should use to test functionality prior installing my packages on your
> workstation.
>
> Please keep in mind: These are unofficial packages! Do not bother the
> debian KDE team when finding bugs or having trouble.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 05.08.2011, at 18:57, Xavier Brochard <xavier@alternatif.org> wrote:
>
>> Hrvoje Senjan wrote:
>>> Leo, i was able to backport KDE 4.6.x to Squeeze (did not change
>>> anything - "only" needed to backport few other packages ie. Qt - it
>>> takes really long time to compile :)) so if you have the time , it's not
>>> impossible nor that difficult to backport it
>>
>> I'm very interested about this as KDE in squeeze gives me a lot of
>> problems to solve (I have users on LTSP network).
>> Don't you have any problems with your backported packages, like missing
>> functionalisties, little bugs / annoyances because of backport, ...?
>> Is there something to improve in the backporting step?
>> Is QT 4.7 relly required?
>>
>> xavier
>>
>>
>> --
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
>> listmaster@lists.debian.org Archive:
>> http://lists.debian.org/j1h7eg$vmm$1@dough.gmane.org
>>
>
>
Reply to: