-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:01, Ben Burton wrote:
> And so I will nevertheless stick with the main point of my previous post
> which was, if we're going to use experimental, to argue for very clear
> documentation to be available on just what to do with APT
Alan Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sunday 20 October 2002 6:04 pm, Brian Nelson wrote:
>
>> That's what I said. I think Qt would be the only dependency that would
>> need to be recompiled. Presumably, you could use some name-mangling
>> scheme like attaching -gcc3.2 or something to t
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, tomas pospisek wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Ben Burton wrote:
> >
> > > Hi. I do have one strong concern with experimental which may be
> > > ill-founded,
> > > I'm not sure. It seems there are lots of inexperienced users out ther
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 20 October 2002 6:04 pm, Brian Nelson wrote:
> That's what I said. I think Qt would be the only dependency that would
> need to be recompiled. Presumably, you could use some name-mangling
> scheme like attaching -gcc3.2 or something to the
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, tomas pospisek wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > Hi. I do have one strong concern with experimental which may be
> > ill-founded,
> > I'm not sure. It seems there are lots of inexperienced users out there
> > wanting to use KDE3 with debian, and I'm worri
Hi Brian,
> That's what I said. I think Qt would be the only dependency that would
> need to be recompiled. Presumably, you could use some name-mangling
> scheme like attaching -gcc3.2 or something to the Qt libraries and
> package name, in lieu of a real transition plan.
>
> I'll have to test t
Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 05:29:24PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
>
>> Or, my variation of the question: Why not just build-depend on g++-3.2,
>> build the packages and their dependencies (anything other than Qt?)
>> explicitly with g++-3.2, and upload to unsta
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Ben Burton wrote:
> Hi. I do have one strong concern with experimental which may be ill-founded,
> I'm not sure. It seems there are lots of inexperienced users out there
> wanting to use KDE3 with debian, and I'm worried we'll have people just
> happily adding experimental t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> I'm worried we'll have
> people just happily adding experimental to their sources.list and silently
> dragging in all sorts of *other* experimental packages that they didn't
> want and don't realise are experimental.
Ah, so thanks to Volker Schlech
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 05:29:24PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Or, my variation of the question: Why not just build-depend on g++-3.2,
> build the packages and their dependencies (anything other than Qt?)
> explicitly with g++-3.2, and upload to unstable or experimental. Once
You'd need to comp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> A very good start and something that could happen within hours would be
> for Karolina or a DD sponser to modify the Debian changelog for her
> packages and then upload to the normal debian archive.
With all gratitude for Karolina's work, as the fo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi. I do have one strong concern with experimental which may be ill-founded,
I'm not sure. It seems there are lots of inexperienced users out there
wanting to use KDE3 with debian, and I'm worried we'll have people just
happily adding experimental t
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 05:29:24PM -0700, Brian Nelson wrote:
> Alan Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I know that is what is happening - what nobody has answered completely yet
> > is
> > WHY you can't put 2.95 compiled packages in to unstable at first and then
> > follow up later with 3
Alan Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Saturday 19 October 2002 4:48 pm, Noel Koethe wrote:
>
>>
>> We will still wait for the gcc 3.2 transition for unstable.
>
> I know that is what is happening - what nobody has answered completely yet is
> WHY you can't put 2.95 compiled packages in t
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 04:24:59PM +0200, Noel Koethe wrote:
> Does anybody see any problems if we will start with kde 3.1x builds/
> uploads for experimental?
A very good start and something that could happen within hours would be
for Karolina or a DD sponser to modify the Debian changelog for he
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 19 October 2002 4:48 pm, Noel Koethe wrote:
>
> We will still wait for the gcc 3.2 transition for unstable.
I know that is what is happening - what nobody has answered completely yet is
WHY you can't put 2.95 compiled packages in to unst
On Saturday 19 October 2002 16:24, Noel Koethe wrote:
> Does anybody see any problems if we will start with kde 3.1x builds/
> uploads for experimental?
I'm very much in favor of this.
Not all KDE packages in Debian are maintained by the Debian KDE maintainers
(in fact, only a minority of them is
On Son, 20 Okt 2002, Mark Purcell wrote:
> > Does anybody see any problems if we will start with kde 3.1x builds/
> > uploads for experimental?
>
> That would be excellent if you would do that and quite suitable to
> upload the kde3.1x builds into unstable.
>
> It would also allow me to upload t
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 04:24:59PM +0200, Noel Koethe wrote:
> Does anybody see any problems if we will start with kde 3.1x builds/
> uploads for experimental?
That would be excellent if you would do that and quite suitable to
upload the kde3.1x builds into unstable.
It would also allow me to upl
On Sam, 19 Okt 2002, Martin Schulze wrote:
Hello,
I have to fully agree that it makes alot of sense if we use
experimental for kde3 stuff. We have lost alot of time since
kde3 released in which we could fix our packages and could
work on packages which base on kde3.
> > Yes, something like this.
ReMoin!
Ralf Nolden wrote:
> > Ralf Nolden wrote:
> > > well, as much as this would work out, someone has to do the work
> > > actually. And regarding the experimental distribution - that brings your
> > > work environment to a highly unstable state, not to speak about the
> > > packagers having t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 19 October 2002 10:39, Martin Schulze wrote:
Moin Joey,
> Moin Ralf!
>
> Ralf Nolden wrote:
> > well, as much as this would work out, someone has to do the work
> > actually. And regarding the experimental distribution - that brings your
Moin Ralf!
Ralf Nolden wrote:
> well, as much as this would work out, someone has to do the work actually.
> And
> regarding the experimental distribution - that brings your work environment
> to a highly unstable state, not to speak about the packagers having to build
> the packages on this s
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002 13:25:28 +0200, Ralf Nolden wrote:
[...]
>The other thing is what version of Debian users want to run KDE on. I myself
>would prefer woody, although testing and unstable are fine, too.
FWIW, just to register an opinion, my interest is solely in non-beta
packages (just don't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Experimental repositry idea is about damn time. Gnome2 have had it for a
> while now. We need a concerted "professional" effort to get KDE3 into
> the debian distribution.
Just for reference, this proposal with the experimental repository has very
On Sun, Oct 13, 2002 at 01:25:28PM +0200, Ralf Nolden wrote:
> My idea would be better to create a debian.kde.org website to collect all
> this
> information and to host a permanent official build on ftp.kde.org. That can
> be the releases as they are plus additional applications that are provid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 13 October 2002 12:25 pm, Ralf Nolden wrote:
>
> Now, let's please be reasonable about what can be done easily and what is
> desireable. Have a quick look at the current state:
>
Could I just clarify something about objectives. It seems to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> The other thing is what version of Debian users want to run KDE on. I
> myself would prefer woody, although testing and unstable are fine, too.
Packages containing the latest stable KDE release should be provided for
woody.
KDE betareleases should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 13 October 2002 12:53, Mark Purcell wrote:
Hi Mark,
well, as much as this would work out, someone has to do the work actually. And
regarding the experimental distribution - that brings your work environment
to a highly unstable state, not
29 matches
Mail list logo
