Hello, On Friday 19 April 2013 13:48:04 Julian wrote: > Its a high level application that runs on, what rightly should be, a > well tested lower (dependency) levels of a stable core (debian base). > > So it has a lot to be thankful for when it comes to stability *out of > the box* or are you saying 4.10 doesn't "just work?". KDE (in a broad extent) is just too big to "just work" without any effort. You probably have never tried to make it work and you have no idea what it takes and how much time it eats. If KDE was of a size of kcalc, I would agree with you. However, now it's 100 source packages and 2-3 times as many binary packages. On the architectural side, it is complicated (akonadi, nepomuk, mysql, virtuoso, phonon and other N number of daemons/framework/moving parts which have to 'play nice' and integrate together). > You know whats really amazing? 4.10 "just works better" than 4.8. > It still builds against qt 4.7 and "works for me". If you managed to build it, you are in the power user group already so "works for you" is probably not the same as what "works for Joe Average" is. > Of course everything I'm saying goes against the current philosophy of > debian, there's only variants of one level, and its all in for stable. There is a way to do this - backports. It is an official service as of wheezy. However, I see the main problem here - noone is interested in actually doing the necessary work and invest their days/weeks of time to make it reality. Debian developers typically use unstable while stable or testing is already good enough for less tech-savvy users or those who do not care about versions. Backporting a single package is one thing, backporting 100 tightly related source packages is another. And it's more than 100 times harder.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.