Re: KDE 3 not in SID

2002-08-17 Thread Matthew M
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 18 August 2002 12:36 am, Alan Chandler wrote: > Why is binary ABI so important that it prevents kde 3 getting into debian > unstable? This means that the maintainers don't have to do the fairly huge amount of work involved in transitioning

Re: KDE 3 not in SID

2002-08-17 Thread Alan Chandler
On Saturday 17 August 2002 7:48 pm, Børre Gaup wrote: > > On Saturday 17 August 2002 20.11, Alan Chandler wrote: > > On Saturday 17 August 2002 5:09 pm, Dirk Schmidt wrote: > > > what's the reason why the KDE 3.0.x packages discussed here are not > > > part of SID/unstable? > > > > It was mentioned

Re: KDE 3 not in SID

2002-08-17 Thread Børre Gaup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 17 August 2002 20.11, Alan Chandler wrote: > On Saturday 17 August 2002 5:09 pm, Dirk Schmidt wrote: > > what's the reason why the KDE 3.0.x packages discussed here are not part > > of SID/unstable? > > It was mentioned here a while back th

Re: KDE 3 not in SID

2002-08-17 Thread Alan Chandler
On Saturday 17 August 2002 5:09 pm, Dirk Schmidt wrote: > > what's the reason why the KDE 3.0.x packages discussed here are not part of > SID/unstable? It was mentioned here a while back that it awaits the release of gcc 3.2. Why I don't know - I asked on this list but there was no reply. -- Al

KDE 3 not in SID

2002-08-17 Thread Dirk Schmidt
Hi, what's the reason why the KDE 3.0.x packages discussed here are not part of SID/unstable? Dirk