Re: KDE 3.2 Progress
On Feb 16, 2004 at 21:38, Josh Metzler praised the llamas by saying: Now to your argument - I agree it doesn't make sense for KDE 3.2 packages to be available for stable but not for unstable. A final reason for this is that there are two KDE teams. The stable packages were not made by the Debian KDE maintainers, but by the KDE project, and they were made using a snapshot of the incomplete Debian packaging. If you browse the list archives, you will see that people have had problems with these packages. It is my understanding that when 3.2 is released to unstable, the stable backports will be recreated using the updated packaging. In my opinion, it was inappropriate for KDE to release Debian stable backports using incomplete packaging, but that was their decision, and that is why 3.2 is available for stable. This isn't quite true. The packages available were done aiui, by Ralf Nolden, who is part of the Debian KDE packaging team. The packages are pretty much exactly the same as the final packages available for sid. -- David Pashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. pgpGB1utBmtXs.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: KDE 3.2 Progress
On Tuesday 17 February 2004 13:17, David Pashley wrote: On Feb 16, 2004 at 21:38, Josh Metzler praised the llamas by saying: Now to your argument - I agree it doesn't make sense for KDE 3.2 packages to be available for stable but not for unstable. A final reason for this is that there are two KDE teams. The stable packages were not made by the Debian KDE maintainers, but by the KDE project, and they were made using a snapshot of the incomplete Debian packaging. If you browse the list archives, you will see that people have had problems with these packages. It is my understanding that when 3.2 is released to unstable, the stable backports will be recreated using the updated packaging. In my opinion, it was inappropriate for KDE to release Debian stable backports using incomplete packaging, but that was their decision, and that is why 3.2 is available for stable. This isn't quite true. The packages available were done aiui, by Ralf Nolden, who is part of the Debian KDE packaging team. The packages are pretty much exactly the same as the final packages available for sid. Hi, Am having trouble since since I did an apt-get to upgrade from KDE 3.1.5 to 3.2. cannot start kdeinit. Check your installation. The system is kernel 2.6.0, KDE3.2 , XFree 4.2.1 on stable. As I am just a user of this desktop and not technically experienced in tracking down the reasons I would like to know if there is something specific I can do, or will this be resolved in the next update? Tried the archives but unfortunately did not give me anything greater understanding. Could it just be some some lib inconsistency? When I log off it occasionally gives SISSEGV, but not always, and now Konq occasionally sissegv's (no specific site). Would appreciate some guidance, 10x Geny.
Re: KDE 3.2 Progress
On Monday 16 February 2004 10:34 am, Robert Tilley wrote: I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE 3.2.0 existing in the stable distribution while missing from the unstable or testing branches. I will have to give the KDE Team minus points on this one. While we all greatly appreciate the improvements in KDE 3.2, having to run stable (with the corresponding lack of software) is an impediment. -- Comments are appreciated, i'm running 3.2 on testing. take a look at the debian wiki to see how. regards, mark
Re: KDE 3.2 Progress
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:34:14AM -0500, Robert Tilley wrote: I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE 3.2.0 existing in the stable distribution while missing from the unstable or testing branches. Except it's not. http://packages.debian.org/stable/x11/kde shows stable has 4:2.2.25. http://packages.debian.org/testing/kde/kde shows testing has the same version. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/kde/kde shows sid has 4:3.1.2 So where are you getting the idea that stable has 3.2? - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAMOVMUzgNqloQMwcRAqfYAKC8+bRZIWZ3H9VDGxKhSyP1nAOSFwCggWNs 4EYMZA44alF0f1TkqeJC+zs= =n1qK -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE 3.2 Progress
On Monday 16 February 2004 10:44 am, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:34:14AM -0500, Robert Tilley wrote: I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE 3.2.0 existing in the stable distribution while missing from the unstable or testing branches. Except it's not. http://packages.debian.org/stable/x11/kde shows stable has 4:2.2.25. http://packages.debian.org/testing/kde/kde shows testing has the same version. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/kde/kde shows sid has 4:3.1.2 So where are you getting the idea that stable has 3.2? There are 3.2 packages for stable on the KDE ftp site. Regards, Mark
Re: KDE 3.2 Progress
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-02-16 16:44, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:34:14AM -0500, Robert Tilley wrote: I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE 3.2.0 existing in the stable distribution while missing from the unstable or testing branches. Except it's not. http://packages.debian.org/stable/x11/kde shows stable has 4:2.2.25. http://packages.debian.org/testing/kde/kde shows testing has the same version. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/kde/kde shows sid has 4:3.1.2 So where are you getting the idea that stable has 3.2? stable has 3.2. available from the kde-mirros - -- Cheers, cobaco 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAMOX65ihPJ4ZiSrsRAn9AAJ96qY4D58H0KZ2574eGcb4Lr7OgYACfcvvT hH0f5KH14QRwpLkK7nJyBjU= =YNGi -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE 3.2 Progress
On February 16, 2004 10:44, Paul Johnson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:34:14AM -0500, Robert Tilley wrote: I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE 3.2.0 existing in the stable distribution while missing from the unstable or testing branches. Except it's not. http://packages.debian.org/stable/x11/kde shows stable has 4:2.2.25. http://packages.debian.org/testing/kde/kde shows testing has the same version. http://packages.debian.org/unstable/kde/kde shows sid has 4:3.1.2 So where are you getting the idea that stable has 3.2? Ralf Nolden of KDE has compiled packages of KDE3.2 against Debian woody which are available for download from KDE mirrors.
Re: KDE 3.2 Progress
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 04:47:03PM +0100, cobaco wrote: stable has 3.2. available from the kde-mirros OK, but that's not debian, that's KDE backporting it for your convenience. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAMOvfUzgNqloQMwcRAgZ0AKCG/87VhbDlKkAjTgGCyD8cK0phnACgywDR hIPTrErE4P7HjIAy464IOVk= =XUXF -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE 3.2 Progress
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2004-02-16 17:12, Paul Johnson wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 04:47:03PM +0100, cobaco wrote: stable has 3.2. available from the kde-mirros OK, but that's not debian, that's KDE backporting it for your convenience. AFAIK these are done by the debian-kde maintainers, so these are as official as it gets, adding completly new versions to the stable archive is against debian policy so that can't be done. - -- Cheers, cobaco 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAMO+55ihPJ4ZiSrsRAqp0AJ9WACEfaIV78p0EDkFw+xUAHgJ5PwCePafm z7FKzcUWa0pyKF0/0MQ8vpQ= =Vdzb -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE 3.2 Progress
On Monday 16 February 2004 08:26 am, Bruce Miller wrote: On February 16, 2004 10:34, Robert Tilley wrote: I have to comment on the seemingly logical contradiction of KDE 3.2.0 existing in the stable distribution while missing from the unstable or testing branches. I will have to give the KDE Team minus points on this one. While we all greatly appreciate the improvements in KDE 3.2, having to run stable (with the corresponding lack of software) is an impediment. -- Comments are appreciated, I am sympathetic to your point of view but cannot entirely agree. The main hold-up to getting 3.2 into unstable is getting 3.1.5 out of unstable. Remember that Debian requires that its packages work on eleven different architectures; something that (we) users of i386 sometimes overlook. Do we _have_ to have KDE 3.1 working in platforms like M68000? I doubt that old chip family has the horsepower to handle KDE. pgplya8SB4DHE.pgp Description: signature
Re: KDE 3.2 Progress
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 12:11:28PM -0700, Doug Holland wrote: Do we _have_ to have KDE 3.1 working in platforms like M68000? Yes. I doubt that old chip family has the horsepower to handle KDE. Runs about as fast as a Pentium from what I've seen. Actually gets reasonably quick about it if you overclock the bugger to 25 MHz or so...that's how we recycled a bunch of LCIIIs back in high school. Cut a hole in the case cover, slapped a monsterous heatsink on there, cranked it up to 25MHz, let it fly. - -- .''`. Paul Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : `. `'` proud Debian admin and user `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fix a system -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAMSYYUzgNqloQMwcRAiUJAKCUjewl0TC+TM8oQIbtCo6BE//IAwCfbj0U DGSzH6v1+GXDGjuEWYUfB1o= =PRD6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: KDE 3.2 Progress
On Monday 16 February 2004 21:20, Paul Johnson wrote: Do we _have_ to have KDE 3.1 working in platforms like M68000? I doubt that old chip family has the horsepower to handle KDE. Runs about as fast as a Pentium from what I've seen. Actually gets reasonably quick about it if you overclock the bugger to 25 MHz or so...that's how we recycled a bunch of LCIIIs back in high school. Cut a hole in the case cover, slapped a monsterous heatsink on there, cranked it up to 25MHz, let it fly. And then there is 68020, 030,040 and 060. The 060 runs at 50 MHz. I really ought to fire up my Amiga some day for a test run.. :) Anders -- This email was generated using KMail from KDE 3.1.5 on Debian GNU/Linux
Re: KDE 3.2 Progress
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:15:27PM +0100, Anders Ellenshøj Andersen wrote: On Monday 16 February 2004 21:20, Paul Johnson wrote: Do we _have_ to have KDE 3.1 working in platforms like M68000? I doubt that old chip family has the horsepower to handle KDE. Runs about as fast as a Pentium from what I've seen. Actually gets reasonably quick about it if you overclock the bugger to 25 MHz or so...that's how we recycled a bunch of LCIIIs back in high school. Cut a hole in the case cover, slapped a monsterous heatsink on there, cranked it up to 25MHz, let it fly. And then there is 68020, 030,040 and 060. The 060 runs at 50 MHz. I really ought to fire up my Amiga some day for a test run.. :) IIRC you can get 060's o/c up to ~ 80 MHz, which should be roughly equivalent to a Pentium. Still slow but not too bad. The primary reason KDE needs to be available on other archs is due to various build-deps, etc. Chris signature.asc Description: Digital signature
