Re: Qt versioning (was: KDE 3.1.2 broken)
>> A workaround is documented on http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DebianKDE > Thanks for the link. I might need it after the next freeze! >Sure, but there's no specific reason that people should know to look >here once it breaks, other than doing random web or mailing list >searches. Upgrades should Just Work. > This will probably be a big problem. But upgrades will only work if they stick with the Official debian repositories. Packages from other sources, especially unofficial ones, are just not expected to work. But try telling that to all the people who will have problems with this. >Perhaps Ralf and Madkiss have a greater plan here that I just don't >understand. > I don't think so. Ralf did a great service providing these from his own work and free time, but I don't think he expected them to intigrate cleanly with the rest of Debian. This brings up something I've been thinking about for a while now: With the long release cycles of Debian, and especially the way it always seems to be poorly timed with other major releases, I.E. KDE, XFree86, Gnome etc, maybe the Debian people should look at spitting the releases up to allow a more up-to-date Debian. Rather than releasing the entire system at one time, and then working on the next entire system, they could split it into major sections like: Base, XFree86, KDE, Gnome, etc. Each would work on building against the current stable version of the rest of the system. After all, KDE is releasing KDE-3.1.2 debs for stable, Brandan, Daniel Stone and others are releasing up-dated XFree86 packages for stable. If Debian was split properly, then all Debian users can enjoy more up-to-date systems without having to risk testing packages. Periodically, they could work on syncing the different parts for major changes like the GCC-3.1 upgrade and such, but otherwise let each part advance on it's own. This would prevent unofficial packages such as the new KDE ones that will cause so many headaches during the next freeze. Just a thought. Cheers, John Gay
Threading in KMail
Is it just me or does the message threading in KMail in need of improvement? It regularly breaks up threads--even ones with the same subject line. Other apps like Balsa and MozMail/Thunderbird work fine with the threading. Using the latest sid debs...
Re: Threading in KMail
On Wednesday 23 July 2003 09:44, Antiphon wrote: > Is it just me or does the message threading in KMail in need of > improvement? It regularly breaks up threads--even ones with the same > subject line. One thing is that kmail does not do threading by Subject (for which I am grateful - half-broken threads with messages being attached to each other in the wrong order is usually the result). The other thing is - and here kmail definitely could use improvement - that kmail appears to ignore the 'References:' header and uses only the 'In-Reply-To:' header. I haven't analyzed it in depth, but I think it also gets confused by the I-R-T headers which also contain the email address of the submitter of the previous message in angle brackets (I think elm produces these). Then, of course, there's still loads of people with plain stupid mail clients that don't generate I-R-T or References headers at all... (Notes, some Microscrap software or other - Thread-Id, gah!) Cheers -- vbi (who is thinking about at least writing a fix-those-headers python script) -- random link of the day: http://fortytwo.ch/sienapei/ohdohghu pgpvmrFNMqGlX.pgp Description: signature
Re: Qt versioning (was: KDE 3.1.2 broken)
From: "John Gay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > This will probably be a big problem. But upgrades will only work if they > stick with the Official debian repositories. Packages from other sources, > especially unofficial ones, are just not expected to work. But try telling > that to all the people who will have problems with this. > > >Perhaps Ralf and Madkiss have a greater plan here that I just don't > >understand. > > > I don't think so. Ralf did a great service providing these from his own > work and free time, but I don't think he expected them to intigrate cleanly > with the rest of Debian. I agree. I don't really see this as being Ralf's fault, anyway. Why are the sid QT3 versions 3.1.1 rather than 3.1.2 like the rest of kde? I would expect they're truly not 3.1.2 yet. derek
Re: Threading in KMail
The approach taken by Balsa seems the best to me. You have the choice between a combo of the three (subject, irt, ref) or individually. That said, I cannot stand Balsa, which is in my experience rather buggy and cannot be scripted easily. I tried using it for a while in my xfce4 setup and went back to Mozilla Mail. On July 23, 2003 03:32 am, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > On Wednesday 23 July 2003 09:44, Antiphon wrote: > > Is it just me or does the message threading in KMail in need of > > improvement? It regularly breaks up threads--even ones with the same > > subject line. > > One thing is that kmail does not do threading by Subject (for which I am > grateful - half-broken threads with messages being attached to each other > in the wrong order is usually the result). The other thing is - and here > kmail definitely could use improvement - that kmail appears to ignore the > 'References:' header and uses only the 'In-Reply-To:' header. I haven't > analyzed it in depth, but I think it also gets confused by the I-R-T > headers which also contain the email address of the submitter of the > previous message in angle brackets (I think elm produces these). > > Then, of course, there's still loads of people with plain stupid mail > clients that don't generate I-R-T or References headers at all... (Notes, > some Microscrap software or other - Thread-Id, gah!) > > Cheers > -- vbi (who is thinking about at least writing a fix-those-headers python > script)
