Re: KDEE3 question
[Excuse the dodgy quality, I'm trying to construct a reply from DWN]. On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 15:03:05 +0100, Michael Meskes scrawled: but since gcc 2.95 is still standard in Debian I guess the switch to 3.2 will take much longer than the release of KDE 3.1 which is due next week. And the explanation we have no KDE 3 since we are still using gcc 2.95 doesn't sound too good because there is no technical reason to couple these two. First thing: KDE 3.1 will not be released this week. Expect a public announcement on this soon, but until then, I can say no more. Sorry, but it's out of my control. Secondly, ftpmasters have to add overrides for new packages, in case you didn't realize. That takes time: their time adding them, and our time waiting. We're trying to minimize the problems by ramming KDE3.1 in with gcc 3.2 and killing two birds with one stone. Not doing so just adds a stupid amount of work to both us (the Debian KDE maintainers - Chris, Ben Burton, Daniel Schepler, David Pashley, Ralf Nolden, and myself), and the ftpmasters. Until then, you'll just have to wait. More work also still has to be done on 2.2-3.1 upgrades before it goes into sid, but that's a completely moot point, because it probably won't go in for over a month, even if gcc 3.2 on SPARC is finally fixed. Daniel, occasional KDE package monkey -- Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne pgpvej4IVvfI5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDEE3 question
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 05:17:19PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: First thing: KDE 3.1 will not be released this week. Expect a public announcement on this soon, but until then, I can say no more. Sorry, but it's out of my control. I know what you're talking about as I just talked to Ralf. Secondly, ftpmasters have to add overrides for new packages, in case you didn't realize. That takes time: their time adding them, and our time waiting. We're trying to minimize the problems by ramming KDE3.1 in with gcc 3.2 and killing two birds with one stone. Not doing so just adds a I see the logic behind this, don't get me wrong. The problem just is that the gcc movement is slowing down the KDE packages for quite some time. After all we could have had 3.0.3 or 3.0.4 in Debian for months now. stupid amount of work to both us (the Debian KDE maintainers - Chris, Ben Burton, Daniel Schepler, David Pashley, Ralf Nolden, and myself), and the ftpmasters. I can understand that you want to minimize your workload, but then the packages are there. Ralf spend quite some time on the packages and I'm sure the others did as well. The only difference right now is that the packages are stored elsewhere and yes, the ftpmasters don't have to add them so far. Until then, you'll just have to wait. More work also still has to be done on 2.2-3.1 upgrades before it goes into sid, but that's a completely moot point, because it probably won't go in for over a month, even if gcc 3.2 on SPARC is finally fixed. But then this work has to be spend anyway. Why not starting the testing cycle now with 3.0.5 so 3.1 goes in cleanly? Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael@Fam-Meskes.De Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
Re: KDEE3 question
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:02:34AM +0100, Michael Meskes scrawled: On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 05:17:19PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: Secondly, ftpmasters have to add overrides for new packages, in case you didn't realize. That takes time: their time adding them, and our time waiting. We're trying to minimize the problems by ramming KDE3.1 in with gcc 3.2 and killing two birds with one stone. Not doing so just adds a I see the logic behind this, don't get me wrong. The problem just is that the gcc movement is slowing down the KDE packages for quite some time. After all we could have had 3.0.3 or 3.0.4 in Debian for months now. Nope - the 3.0.x packages just were not ready to go into sid. Any package where the upgrade strategy is to purge the old and install the new just doesn't work. 3.1.x will be the first packages where upgrades from 2.2.x are clean. stupid amount of work to both us (the Debian KDE maintainers - Chris, Ben Burton, Daniel Schepler, David Pashley, Ralf Nolden, and myself), and the ftpmasters. I can understand that you want to minimize your workload, but then the packages are there. Ralf spend quite some time on the packages and I'm sure the others did as well. The only difference right now is that the packages are stored elsewhere and yes, the ftpmasters don't have to add them so far. I have not spent a huge amount of time, only a little bit of time preparing 3.0b[12] and 3.0rc[12345], as well as 3.0.3 and 3.0.3a. Karolina has been doing some unofficial packages, as has Ralf, and Ben, Daniel, David and, of course, Chris, have been spending a lot of time making sure current CVS (i.e. what's essentially 3.1), works fine; I have the packages on my laptop and they work flawlessly, thanks to the buildd a co-worker and I setup to do nothing but cvs up and debuild, 24x7. Until then, you'll just have to wait. More work also still has to be done on 2.2-3.1 upgrades before it goes into sid, but that's a completely moot point, because it probably won't go in for over a month, even if gcc 3.2 on SPARC is finally fixed. But then this work has to be spend anyway. Why not starting the testing cycle now with 3.0.5 so 3.1 goes in cleanly? Not without revamping debian/control. I'm also somewhat ... uncomfortable about putting 3.0.x in. If you know why 3.1 has been held up, then you'll know that 3.0.x is quite possibly a worse choice than 2.2.x with regards to that issue. Then again, I'm just an occasional package monkey who ceased to be authoriative with my disastrous 3.0rc5 packages (the last set I made), and, to a lesser degree, long before 3.0b1 when Chris and I divvied up the packages, and I devised my exit strategy. :) d -- Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer, Trinity College, University of Melbourne pgpbGZ3uikeE7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDEE3 question
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 08:28:20PM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote: Nope - the 3.0.x packages just were not ready to go into sid. Any package where the upgrade strategy is to purge the old and install the new just doesn't work. 3.1.x will be the first packages where upgrades from 2.2.x are clean. Didn't know that. On my machine a simple update from 2.2.2 to 3.0.3 worked fine. :-) Not without revamping debian/control. I'm also somewhat ... uncomfortable about putting 3.0.x in. If you know why 3.1 has been held up, then you'll know that 3.0.x is quite possibly a worse choice than 2.2.x with regards to that issue. Yes, I have to agree completely with you on this one. Had I known that before I wouldn't have send my original mail. But then no one else did. :-) I didn't mean to critisize anyone. My thinking was just how do we get the best Debian possible. Thanks for your explanations. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael@Fam-Meskes.De Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
Re: KDEE3 question
On Sat, Nov 30, 2002 at 10:53:40AM +0100, Mateusz Papiernik wrote: You're right. Packages from kde.org are very stable, and I think - correctly created, I'm using them for long time (about three months), AFAIK the debian dirs are in KDE cvs anyway. and I didn't notice any problems with them. IMO waiting for full gcc transition in Sid, which will take very much time, isn't good idea for KDE3. I do agree to that of course. If the gcc 3.2 transition was just a few days ahead I could understand that, but we haven't got KDE3 for several months now and still there is not even a plan to move to gcc 3.2 or is there? Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael@Fam-Meskes.De Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
Re: KDEE3 question
#include hallo.h * Colin Watson [Fri, Nov 29 2002, 02:14:35PM]: to see a good reason for not compiling KDE3 on gcc 2.95 as this definitely works or else there wouldn't be a single KDE3 for woody package on kde.org. The good reason is that all the KDE library sonames have to be changed when switching to gcc 3.2. The KDE developers rightly wish to avoid this disruption. What's the problem with a such change? Sure, the amount of work needed for the whole gcc-3.2 transition would grow a bit. But what will happen when they upload new, gcc-3.2 based packages with the package names of existing inofficial packages? I expect lots of users whinning about temporar breakage. So it would be good to change them anyways. And looking so, the existing KDE3 packages could also go into Sid _now_. Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed... ...Oh, wait a minute, he already does.
Re: KDEE3 question
temporar breakage. So it would be good to change them anyways. And looking so, the existing KDE3 packages could also go into Sid _now_. You're right. Packages from kde.org are very stable, and I think - correctly created, I'm using them for long time (about three months), and I didn't notice any problems with them. IMO waiting for full gcc transition in Sid, which will take very much time, isn't good idea for KDE3. Regards, -- Mati ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Sounds like a Windows problem, try calling Microsoft support
Re: KDEE3 question
On Friday 29 Nov 2002 9:12 am, Michael Meskes wrote: Hi, I was just being told that we won't get any KDE3 packages until the whole Debian project is moved to gcc 3.2. Is this correct? If so, why? And is there a timetable? Is it a problem to compile the packages with gcc 2.95? The matter of the fact is that almost all Debian/KDE users are already using ftp.kde.org to get the KDE packages. I would surely prefer to have these packages as part of our archive instead of redirecting everyone away from debian.org. The plan as i understand it is to supply gcc 3.2 built packages once kde 3.1 is released, and never supply gcc 2.95 ones in debian Tom
Re: KDEE3 question
Tom Badran wrote: On Friday 29 Nov 2002 9:12 am, Michael Meskes wrote: Hi, I was just being told that we won't get any KDE3 packages until the whole Debian project is moved to gcc 3.2. Is this correct? If so, why? And is there a timetable? Is it a problem to compile the packages with gcc 2.95? The matter of the fact is that almost all Debian/KDE users are already using ftp.kde.org to get the KDE packages. I would surely prefer to have these packages as part of our archive instead of redirecting everyone away from debian.org. The plan as i understand it is to supply gcc 3.2 built packages once kde 3.1 is released, and never supply gcc 2.95 ones in debian AFAIK, both gcc-3.2 and binutils have to be checked on every architecture and the transition will start once all architectures are ready for the transition. Cheers,
Re: KDEE3 question
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 09:52:52AM +, Tom Badran wrote: The plan as i understand it is to supply gcc 3.2 built packages once kde 3.1 is released, and never supply gcc 2.95 ones in debian but since gcc 2.95 is still standard in Debian I guess the switch to 3.2 will take much longer than the release of KDE 3.1 which is due next week. And the explanation we have no KDE 3 since we are still using gcc 2.95 doesn't sound too good because there is no technical reason to couple these two. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael@Fam-Meskes.De Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
Re: KDEE3 question
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 11:07:15AM +0100, Jrme Marant wrote: AFAIK, both gcc-3.2 and binutils have to be checked on every architecture and the transition will start once all architectures are ready for the transition. And of course we have to create a plan for this transition before we can start, don't we? Or do we have such a plan? Frankly, I can see the transition taking some more time, but still fail to see a good reason for not compiling KDE3 on gcc 2.95 as this definitely works or else there wouldn't be a single KDE3 for woody package on kde.org. If it's just bandwidth tell me and I do the upload. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael@Fam-Meskes.De Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
Re: KDEE3 question
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 03:05:46PM +0100, Michael Meskes wrote: Frankly, I can see the transition taking some more time, but still fail to see a good reason for not compiling KDE3 on gcc 2.95 as this definitely works or else there wouldn't be a single KDE3 for woody package on kde.org. The good reason is that all the KDE library sonames have to be changed when switching to gcc 3.2. The KDE developers rightly wish to avoid this disruption. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: KDEE3 question
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 29 November 2002 09:12, Michael Meskes wrote: The matter of the fact is that almost all Debian/KDE users are already using ftp.kde.org to get the KDE packages. Um, how do you know this? Paul Cupis - -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE954B8IzuKV+SHX/kRAhIcAJ9/CkGTZigibsgfhjf2p1tR39TL3gCffRoN 0HZadkXoB4qrfP3aaL70cl0= =kUF/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDEE3 question
On Fri, Nov 29, 2002 at 02:57:32PM +, Paul Cupis wrote: The matter of the fact is that almost all Debian/KDE users are already using ftp.kde.org to get the KDE packages. Um, how do you know this? Sorry, I of course don't know all Debian/KDE users. I was just extrapolating. I talked to quite some users and they all did. No single KDE user remained with 2.2.2. Also we have some customers using Debian/KDE with the complete networks using KDE3. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael@Fam-Meskes.De Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
