Re: Versions mismatch and upload methodology for KDE applications
Luigi Toscano - 04.11.22, 21:58:58 CET: > Shmerl ha scritto: > > I noticed that versions of KDE applications in Debian repos are > > all over the place. Examples: > > > > kmail: 22.08.2 > > konsole: 22.08.1 > > okular: 22.04.3 > > and etc. > > > > So method of uploading them seems random or ad hoc. > > > > Why aren't KDE maintainers uploading the whole suite of > > applications at once for all of them to have the same version? > > I can't speak for the maintainers, but please consider that those > programs are part of KDE Gear, which is just a collection of software > which is released together, but it doesn't automatically imply a > dependency between the various applications. There may be some (for > example, all bits which mades KDE PIM) but that's not the general > rule, so they can be updated separately. Additionally the version numbers of all apps are updated on each KDE Gear release, no matter whether there have been changes to them. That written for Okular for example I expect changes on every major KDE Gear release. Also it can happen that for some reason a package needs to go through NEW again and approved by ftpmasters. Thanks, -- Martin
Re: Versions mismatch and upload methodology for KDE applications
Hej, Am Freitag, 4. November 2022, 20:47:41 CET schrieb Shmerl: > I noticed that versions of KDE applications in Debian repos are > all over the place. Examples: > > kmail: 22.08.2 > konsole: 22.08.1 > okular: 22.04.3 > and etc. > > So method of uploading them seems random or ad hoc. > > Why aren't KDE maintainers uploading the whole suite of > applications at once for all of them to have the same version? In short, lack of manpower. We've automated the packaging of the Frameworks, Plasma and PIM for the most part, but Gear isn't quite there yet for various reasons. If you're interested in getting everything up-to-date, feel free to join the effort. -- Med vänliga hälsningar Patrick Franz
Re: Versions mismatch and upload methodology for KDE applications
Yeah, I get that they don't always depend on each other, but it's more about keeping them up to date in the repos. I thought it might be easier to upload them all at once, that's why I was asking about methodology of updating them in Debian. Shmerl. On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 4:59 PM Luigi Toscano wrote: > I can't speak for the maintainers, but please consider that those programs > are > part of KDE Gear, which is just a collection of software which is released > together, but it doesn't automatically imply a dependency between the > various > applications. There may be some (for example, all bits which mades KDE PIM) > but that's not the general rule, so they can be updated separately. >
Re: Versions mismatch and upload methodology for KDE applications
Shmerl ha scritto: > I noticed that versions of KDE applications in Debian repos are > all over the place. Examples: > > kmail: 22.08.2 > konsole: 22.08.1 > okular: 22.04.3 > and etc. > > So method of uploading them seems random or ad hoc. > > Why aren't KDE maintainers uploading the whole suite of > applications at once for all of them to have the same version? I can't speak for the maintainers, but please consider that those programs are part of KDE Gear, which is just a collection of software which is released together, but it doesn't automatically imply a dependency between the various applications. There may be some (for example, all bits which mades KDE PIM) but that's not the general rule, so they can be updated separately. -- Luigi
Versions mismatch and upload methodology for KDE applications
I noticed that versions of KDE applications in Debian repos are all over the place. Examples: kmail: 22.08.2 konsole: 22.08.1 okular: 22.04.3 and etc. So method of uploading them seems random or ad hoc. Why aren't KDE maintainers uploading the whole suite of applications at once for all of them to have the same version? Thanks! Shmerl.
Re: Kind request to package kpart-webkit for modern Debian versions
On 09.05.2022 23:29, Aurélien COUDERC wrote: The package was removed from Debian for a specific reason : it's dependency on Qt4 : https://tracker.debian.org/news/902784/removed-134-2-from-unstable/ Since it seems to have been ported to Qt5 / KF5 in the meantime I see no technical reason why it shouldn't be reintegrated into Debian. However this is still a relatively niche use case and the Qt/KDE Team in Debian is generally more interested in on-boarding more contributors than more packages. 😉 So if you want to see it back I'd advise you fork the repo and start getting the package up to date with upstream and Debian standards, so we can review and upload your work to the archive. Feel free to join #debian-qt-kde on IRC and ask for help/review. Could you clarify which upstream are you referring to? This package is a standard KDE package, not a third-party one. https://invent.kde.org/libraries/kwebkitpart OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Kind request to package kpart-webkit for modern Debian versions
[adding pkg-kde-talk@alioth-lists to the thread, where we discuss packaging topics] Le 9 mai 2022 20:10:19 GMT+02:00, ValdikSS a écrit : >Hello, mailing list. Hi ValdikSS, >Is there any chance to get kpart-webkit package into newer Debian versions? >https://packages.debian.org/stretch/kpart-webkit > >This package allows to use Webkit renderer in Konqueror browser. This renderer >is outdated and not compatible with all the websites, however it is much >faster and lower on RAM consumption than modern WebEngine used by default. >This would allow to browse the web using very low-end machines by current >standards, such as 32-bit PCs with 512 MB RAM. > >Debian is basically the only major Linux distribution which still supports >i386, and there's Webkit packaged for Surf and Qutebrowser packages, and it's >even present as a module for KDE Frameworks (libkf5webkit5), but it can't be >used in Konqueror due to missing kpart. > >Kindly asking to bring old kpart-webkit package from Stretch to newer >Bullseye, to extent the lifespan of older hardware. Surf and QuteBrowser still >could be used, but that browsers are aimed at keyboard controls, not a regular >interface such as Konqueror. The package was removed from Debian for a specific reason : it's dependency on Qt4 : https://tracker.debian.org/news/902784/removed-134-2-from-unstable/ Since it seems to have been ported to Qt5 / KF5 in the meantime I see no technical reason why it shouldn't be reintegrated into Debian. However this is still a relatively niche use case and the Qt/KDE Team in Debian is generally more interested in on-boarding more contributors than more packages. 😉 So if you want to see it back I'd advise you fork the repo and start getting the package up to date with upstream and Debian standards, so we can review and upload your work to the archive. Feel free to join #debian-qt-kde on IRC and ask for help/review. >P.S. libkf5webkit5 package description says it provides kpart component, which >is does not. Could it be the whole reason of missing webkit in Konqueror? The description is purely … hem … descriptive. I'll have a look at what's in the package and fix the description accordingly. Happy hacking ! -- Aurélien
Kind request to package kpart-webkit for modern Debian versions
Hello, mailing list. Is there any chance to get kpart-webkit package into newer Debian versions? https://packages.debian.org/stretch/kpart-webkit This package allows to use Webkit renderer in Konqueror browser. This renderer is outdated and not compatible with all the websites, however it is much faster and lower on RAM consumption than modern WebEngine used by default. This would allow to browse the web using very low-end machines by current standards, such as 32-bit PCs with 512 MB RAM. Debian is basically the only major Linux distribution which still supports i386, and there's Webkit packaged for Surf and Qutebrowser packages, and it's even present as a module for KDE Frameworks (libkf5webkit5), but it can't be used in Konqueror due to missing kpart. Kindly asking to bring old kpart-webkit package from Stretch to newer Bullseye, to extent the lifespan of older hardware. Surf and QuteBrowser still could be used, but that browsers are aimed at keyboard controls, not a regular interface such as Konqueror. P.S. libkf5webkit5 package description says it provides kpart component, which is does not. Could it be the whole reason of missing webkit in Konqueror? OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Info on versions for me
Just to add my config : Linux : debian unstable
=> kdeconnect 1.3.1 (all tested linuxes) and two mobiles
tested : android Oreo (8.1.0) 1.8.x and even tested beta
versions 1.9, and android nougat 7.1.x kdeconnect 1.8.x from
play store.
-- eric
Re: Up to date information on plasma versions in testing?
On 22 October 2016 at 13:45, Shawn Sörbom wrote: > Hi folks, > Just wondering where one can find up to date information on the plasma > versions currently in stretch? the obvious answer would be to check > individual > packages of course, but I find that they often have confusing (and > conflicting) version numbers. Is a package like Kwin a good overall > progress > indicator for the state of which version is (mostly) being used? > Thanks, > --Shawn > > This page has all the packages and their versions in different releases maintained by the qt-kde team https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=debian-qt-...@lists.debian.org -- Sami Erjomaa
Up to date information on plasma versions in testing?
Hi folks, Just wondering where one can find up to date information on the plasma versions currently in stretch? the obvious answer would be to check individual packages of course, but I find that they often have confusing (and conflicting) version numbers. Is a package like Kwin a good overall progress indicator for the state of which version is (mostly) being used? Thanks, --Shawn
Re: Re: nepomuk-core-runtime 'prevents' upgrade of libavutil52 to versions 9.8-1
On Friday 19 July 2013 12:59:25 Pino Toscano wrote: > If you really want deb-multimedia in your repositories (which I do not > recommend), then you should better use apt's pinning to give to the > suites of this repository priorities lower than the ones for the main > archive (this implies also raising the priority for experimental to > more than 100, if you use it). And that was the key to solving my issue (experimental is now at 150) :-) And I also took your suggestions about the other versions available and now the only package I have from deb-multimedia is libdvdcss2 (which I guess is still needed to watch dvds). Dunno how I kept having these brainfarts, but I'm glad it's now solved. Thanks! PS: My command to get non-debian packages is this: aptitude search '?narrow(~i, !?origin(debian))' and if you want to paste the output in a mail, you could append -F '%c%2M%p%v' -- GPG: 0x138E41915C7EFED6 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: nepomuk-core-runtime 'prevents' upgrade of libavutil52 to versions 9.8-1
Alle venerdì 19 luglio 2013, Diederik de Haas ha scritto:
> On Friday 19 July 2013 12:18:19 Pino Toscano wrote:
> > Ok then; just to tule out any other deb-multimedia issue, could you
> > please check the output of
> > $ dpkg -l '*' | grep ^ii | grep -- -dmo
>
> $ dpkg -l '*' | grep ^ii | grep -- -dmo
> ii handbrake-cli 0.9.9-dmo3
> ii handbrake-gtk 0.9.9-dmo3
> ii mencoder 3:1.1.1-dmo4
These exist in sid/experimental, although slightly older.
> ii lame 1:3.99.5-dmo2
> ii libmp3lame0:amd64 1:3.99.5-dmo2
> ii libtag1-vanilla:amd64 1.8-dmo1
> ii libtag1c2a:amd64 1.8-dmo1
These exist in sid, and should better use them from there instead of
deb-multimedia.
> ii libdvdcss2:amd64 1.2.13-dmo1
> ii libfaac0:amd641:1.28-dmo3
> ii libx264-135:amd64 3:0.135.2345+gitf0c1c53-dmo1
> ii libxvidcore4:amd643:1.3.2-dmo1
> > ? I was able to install right now libavutil52 aside libavutil51 on
> > a current testing/jessie installation, so if there is a conflict
> > it would be indirect.
>
> Can you tell me which versions of those libraries you installed?
libavutil52 from experimental, of course.
> $ aptitude -s install libavutil52
> The following packages will be upgraded:
> libavutil52{b}
> 1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not
> upgraded. Need to get 102 kB of archives. After unpacking 16.4 kB
> will be used. The following packages have unmet dependencies:
> libavutil52 : Conflicts: libavutil-extra-51 which is a virtual
> package.
This conflict exists *only* in the libavutil52 provided in
deb-multimedia.
If you really want deb-multimedia in your repositories (which I do not
recommend), then you should better use apt's pinning to give to the
suites of this repository priorities lower than the ones for the main
archive (this implies also raising the priority for experimental to
more than 100, if you use it).
--
Pino Toscano
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Re: nepomuk-core-runtime 'prevents' upgrade of libavutil52 to versions 9.8-1
On Friday 19 July 2013 12:18:19 Pino Toscano wrote:
> Ok then; just to tule out any other deb-multimedia issue, could you
> please check the output of
> $ dpkg -l '*' | grep ^ii | grep -- -dmo
$ dpkg -l '*' | grep ^ii | grep -- -dmo
ii handbrake-cli 0.9.9-dmo3amd64
ii handbrake-gtk 0.9.9-dmo3amd64
ii lame 1:3.99.5-dmo2 amd64
ii libdvdcss2:amd64 1.2.13-dmo1 amd64
ii libfaac0:amd641:1.28-dmo3 amd64
ii libmp3lame0:amd64 1:3.99.5-dmo2 amd64
ii libtag1-vanilla:amd64 1.8-dmo1 amd64
ii libtag1c2a:amd64 1.8-dmo1 amd64
ii libx264-135:amd64 3:0.135.2345+gitf0c1c53-dmo1 amd64
ii libxvidcore4:amd643:1.3.2-dmo1 amd64
ii mencoder 3:1.1.1-dmo4 amd64
> ? I was able to install right now libavutil52 aside libavutil51 on a
> current testing/jessie installation, so if there is a conflict it would
> be indirect.
Can you tell me which versions of those libraries you installed?
$ aptitude versions libavutil52
Package libavutil52:
i A 6:9.7-1100
p A 6:9.8-1 experimental 101
p A 9:1.2.1-dmo6 unstable 101
$ aptitude versions libavutil51
Package libavutil51:
i A 6:0.8.7-1testing,unstable 500
p A 8:1.0.7-dmo1 unstable 101
$ aptitude -s install libavutil52
The following packages will be upgraded:
libavutil52{b}
1 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
Need to get 102 kB of archives. After unpacking 16.4 kB will be used.
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libavutil52 : Conflicts: libavutil-extra-51 which is a virtual package.
libavutil-extra-51 is provided by libavutil51
--
GPG: 0x138E41915C7EFED6
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: nepomuk-core-runtime 'prevents' upgrade of libavutil52 to versions 9.8-1
Alle venerdì 19 luglio 2013, Diederik de Haas ha scritto: > On Friday 19 July 2013 11:41:52 Pino Toscano wrote: > > libavutil52 exists only in experimental... and in deb-multimedia, > > and also vlc does. This means you are using vlc from > > deb-multimedia, > > No, I'm not using vlc from deb-multimedia (I do have other programs > like handbrake from deb-multimedia though). Ok then; just to tule out any other deb-multimedia issue, could you please check the output of $ dpkg -l '*' | grep ^ii | grep -- -dmo ? I was able to install right now libavutil52 aside libavutil51 on a current testing/jessie installation, so if there is a conflict it would be indirect. > I would be happy to remove all vlc packages from my system, but > phonon-backend-vlc needs it. For video I use SMPlayer and for audio > Amarok, so I have no need for vlc. No need to. -- Pino Toscano signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Re: nepomuk-core-runtime 'prevents' upgrade of libavutil52 to versions 9.8-1
On Friday 19 July 2013 11:41:52 Pino Toscano wrote: > libavutil52 exists only in experimental... and in deb-multimedia, and > also vlc does. This means you are using vlc from deb-multimedia, No, I'm not using vlc from deb-multimedia (I do have other programs like handbrake from deb-multimedia though). $ aptitude versions ~ivlc Package libvlc5: i 2.0.7-3 testing,unstable 500 Package libvlccore5: i 2.0.7-3 testing,unstable 500 Package phonon-backend-vlc: i 0.6.2-2 testing,unstable 500 Package vlc-data: i 2.0.7-3 testing,unstable 500 Package vlc-nox: i 2.0.7-3 testing,unstable 500 I would be happy to remove all vlc packages from my system, but phonon- backend-vlc needs it. For video I use SMPlayer and for audio Amarok, so I have no need for vlc. -- GPG: 0x138E41915C7EFED6 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: nepomuk-core-runtime 'prevents' upgrade of libavutil52 to versions 9.8-1
Hi, Alle venerdì 19 luglio 2013, Diederik de Haas ha scritto: > For about a week now, the upgrade of libavutil52 and libswscale2 is > held back because the latest version of libavutil52 conflicts with > libavutil51, which is required by nepomuk-core-runtime. The > libavutil52 library is needed by vlc- nox, which is needed by > phonon-backend-vlc. libavutil52 exists only in experimental... and in deb-multimedia, and also vlc does. This means you are using vlc from deb-multimedia, meaning your phonon-backend-vlc could break anytime because of that (it did various times in the past), or that you get dependencies issues like this. You are strongly recommended to *not* use deb-multimedia for this kind of packages (libav, vlc), since they are more harmful than useful (as Marillat does not care about being compatibile with Debian's archive). -- Pino Toscano signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
nepomuk-core-runtime 'prevents' upgrade of libavutil52 to versions 9.8-1
Hi, For about a week now, the upgrade of libavutil52 and libswscale2 is held back because the latest version of libavutil52 conflicts with libavutil51, which is required by nepomuk-core-runtime. The libavutil52 library is needed by vlc- nox, which is needed by phonon-backend-vlc. The resolution aptitude is offering is basically installing all KDE packages, which is of course not what I want. I *think* that changing the dependency of nepomuk-core-runtime to "libavutil51 | libavutil52" would solve this dependency issue, but I don't know if libavutil52 is 'compatible' (or sth like that) with nepomuk-core-runtime. It's not a critical issue or sth and running sid/experimental these things are expected to happen from time to time, but I guess reporting it (to the ML) wouldn't hurt ;-) Cheers, Diederik -- GPG: 0x138E41915C7EFED6 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: How does Konqueror detect flash versions?
On Thursday 20 January 2011, Kevin Krammer wrote: > On Thursday, 2011-01-20, David Goodenough wrote: > > I am having endless problems running flash (in particular BBC IPlayer). > > I have the normal flashplayer-plugin installed from sid (from a few weeks > > ago) and as I recall that installed flash player 10 (.? I do not > > remember). > > > > The IPlayer page I hit this morning gave some more information, it said:- > > > > This content requires Flash Player version 9 (installed version: 7.0.25) > > > > which made me think that perhaps I have an old version installed > > somewhere, and it is finding the wrong one. Any idea how I might track > > down the 7.0.25 that it is finding so that I can terminate it with > > extreme prejudice. > > Settings -> Configure Konqueror -> Plugins > second tab shows a list of paths searched for plugins and below that the > ones it found. > > Cheers, > Kevin thanks that enabled me to find it and kill the miscreant. Now IPlayer works as expected. David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201101201238.18123.david.goodeno...@btconnect.com
Re: How does Konqueror detect flash versions?
On Thursday, 2011-01-20, David Goodenough wrote: > I am having endless problems running flash (in particular BBC IPlayer). > I have the normal flashplayer-plugin installed from sid (from a few weeks > ago) and as I recall that installed flash player 10 (.? I do not remember). > > The IPlayer page I hit this morning gave some more information, it said:- > > This content requires Flash Player version 9 (installed version: 7.0.25) > > which made me think that perhaps I have an old version installed > somewhere, and it is finding the wrong one. Any idea how I might track > down the 7.0.25 that it is finding so that I can terminate it with > extreme prejudice. Settings -> Configure Konqueror -> Plugins second tab shows a list of paths searched for plugins and below that the ones it found. Cheers, Kevin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
How does Konqueror detect flash versions?
I am having endless problems running flash (in particular BBC IPlayer). I have the normal flashplayer-plugin installed from sid (from a few weeks ago) and as I recall that installed flash player 10 (.? I do not remember). The IPlayer page I hit this morning gave some more information, it said:- This content requires Flash Player version 9 (installed version: 7.0.25) which made me think that perhaps I have an old version installed somewhere, and it is finding the wrong one. Any idea how I might track down the 7.0.25 that it is finding so that I can terminate it with extreme prejudice. This is machine that I have been running for some years, and it might have picked up manner of cruft over the years. David -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201101201126.16276.david.goodeno...@btconnect.com
Re: Development Versions of KDE 4.3 and Friends?
Sune: Thanks, yeah, I am just trying my best to avoid building from source. It looks like I have no choice though :( Cheers, Jonathan On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2009-07-02, Jonathan Yu wrote: >> Hi all: >> >> I'm working on a summer project for Debian which involves KDE4.3 and >> its bindings. Right now because of Sune Vuorela's projected release >> schedule, I'm looking at compiling the necessary stuff from source. >> But, especially looking at how long the buildds are taking to compile >> previous KDE versions (4+ hours!) I was wondering if anyone might have >> a repository containing experimental KDE4.3-related packages. > > Also for the sake of your project, you need to compile smoke yourself. > You can probably even just compile qt smoke by passing the right > arguments to cmake. > > /Sune > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Development Versions of KDE 4.3 and Friends?
On 2009-07-02, Jonathan Yu wrote: > Hi all: > > I'm working on a summer project for Debian which involves KDE4.3 and > its bindings. Right now because of Sune Vuorela's projected release > schedule, I'm looking at compiling the necessary stuff from source. > But, especially looking at how long the buildds are taking to compile > previous KDE versions (4+ hours!) I was wondering if anyone might have > a repository containing experimental KDE4.3-related packages. Also for the sake of your project, you need to compile smoke yourself. You can probably even just compile qt smoke by passing the right arguments to cmake. /Sune -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Development Versions of KDE 4.3 and Friends?
Hello, On 2009 m. July 2 d., Thursday 23:52:48 anna wrote: > http://www.kubuntu.org/ > > KDE 4.3 RC 1 Available > Submitted on Thu, 2009-07-02 > > from a ppa though ... Please keep kubuntu and especially ppa stuff out of this list. Gives wrong impression that it is installable/usable on Debian. It isn't. -- Modestas Vainius signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Development Versions of KDE 4.3 and Friends?
http://www.kubuntu.org/ KDE 4.3 RC 1 Available Submitted on Thu, 2009-07-02 from a ppa though ... > Hi all: > > I'm working on a summer project for Debian which involves KDE4.3 and > its bindings. Right now because of Sune Vuorela's projected release > schedule, I'm looking at compiling the necessary stuff from source. > But, especially looking at how long the buildds are taking to compile > previous KDE versions (4+ hours!) I was wondering if anyone might have > a repository containing experimental KDE4.3-related packages. > > In particular, the project I'm working on doesn't have a Debian > package yet either, so I need to compile from source. It builds > properly on Ubuntu, but not Debian, because the version of > libsmokeqt4-2 in Debian is too old. > > Thanks in advance! > > Cheers, > > Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Development Versions of KDE 4.3 and Friends?
Hi all: I'm working on a summer project for Debian which involves KDE4.3 and its bindings. Right now because of Sune Vuorela's projected release schedule, I'm looking at compiling the necessary stuff from source. But, especially looking at how long the buildds are taking to compile previous KDE versions (4+ hours!) I was wondering if anyone might have a repository containing experimental KDE4.3-related packages. In particular, the project I'm working on doesn't have a Debian package yet either, so I need to compile from source. It builds properly on Ubuntu, but not Debian, because the version of libsmokeqt4-2 in Debian is too old. Thanks in advance! Cheers, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Info about KDE versions in unstable, testing...
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 01:37:32PM +0200, Tadeas Moravec wrote: ... > I imagine it like this. > There will be a message - in the FAQ section for example or on the main page > on > http://pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org/ in which something like this will be: > "We are currently working on getting XYZ version to get into unstable. It's > almost ready, we are just waiting for package ABC to be packaged and bug DEF > to > be solved. It will probably happen tomorrow in the evening, so you can look > forward to having KDE version XYZ in unstable the day after tomorrow or the > day > after that. > The current version BLAH in unstable is waiting for bugs 1,2,3,4 and 5 to be > solved. One of them is solved in experimental and more two are solved > upstream, > so we need just to get these fixes to unstable first. After this will happen, > version BLAH will migrate to testing." That would be possible if we usually have a clear plan of how (and when) are going to be things done, but that is almost never that way. Some stuff does not depend on us and even about of the stuff that depends on our work can not be scheduled. You can plan doing foo in some evening but then you get something better to do. You do not have this not even in companies were you pay And no, we are not going to twitter or something like that, if you are so interested in the development, you will have to follow the development as it happens (mailing lists, IRC, commit messages), the developers are not going to follow you. Ana -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Info about KDE versions in unstable, testing...
Hello, thank for the reply. I probably didn't express myself correctly. I wasn't inquiring about the actual versions nor about what's preventing new from getting to Debian at the moment, but I suggest putting this info on the web. Yes, we can ask here or on IRC, but there's probably a lot of people who don't use IRC nor write to this mailing list - who would like to know too. Moreover personally I'm eager to get 4.2.3 to unstable because of some fixes - but I really don't want to bother others on IRC or here every day inquiring about what's holding 4.2.3 from unstable, so it would be great if this updated info was on the web. I agree about the point of 4.2.4 - but if this was already settled on, why don't we write it somewhere everybody can read it? I imagine it like this. There will be a message - in the FAQ section for example or on the main page on http://pkg-kde.alioth.debian.org/ in which something like this will be: "We are currently working on getting XYZ version to get into unstable. It's almost ready, we are just waiting for package ABC to be packaged and bug DEF to be solved. It will probably happen tomorrow in the evening, so you can look forward to having KDE version XYZ in unstable the day after tomorrow or the day after that. The current version BLAH in unstable is waiting for bugs 1,2,3,4 and 5 to be solved. One of them is solved in experimental and more two are solved upstream, so we need just to get these fixes to unstable first. After this will happen, version BLAH will migrate to testing." # > Původní zpráva # > Od: Modestas Vainius # > Předmět: Re: Info about KDE versions in unstable, testing... # > Datum: 21.5.2009 12:31:09 # > # > Hello, # > # > On 2009 m. May 21 d., Thursday 13:12:49 Tadeas Moravec wrote: # > > important, some info about when a new version will come, what must be done # > > before say 4.3 beta will be in experimental # > It must be packaged (MUCH (really) work, somewhat low interest recently). # > # > > or 4.2.3 in unstable and so? I # > 4.2.4 is coming in a bit more than a week. 4.2.3 is not much better than 4.2.2 # # > so skipping 4.2.3 does not seem to be a very bad idea. # > # > > mean some information about the process of getting a new version to # > > unstable or experimental and also some information about the current status # > > of the version in unstable - what prevents it from getting to testing. # > 4.2.2 is in testing. # > # > > What do you think? Would that be too much additional work for the # > > developers? # > When you want more info about the process, you just ask here or hang in the # > respective IRC channels. # > # > -- # > Modestas Vainius # > # > # > # -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Info about KDE versions in unstable, testing...
On Thursday 21 May 2009, Modestas Vainius wrote: > It must be packaged (MUCH (really) work, somewhat low interest > recently). Yeah, the downside of a large distro trying to support so many platforms, and KDE being pretty mammoth. Everything I've said elsewhere about the quality of the KDE4 suite per se aside, the work that goes into this is known to be huge, and is very much appreciated. > 4.2.4 is coming in a bit more than a week. 4.2.3 is not much better > than 4.2.2 so skipping 4.2.3 does not seem to be a very bad idea. I think the KDE dot releases are meant to be every month, was that right? I think I'd be happy with jumping every second release like that - as much as I'd love to get bug fixes and new (well, recover the 3.5) features as fast as possible. Do you expect that a two monthly, or every second dot release, is about the pace that will be settled on? Jedd. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Info about KDE versions in unstable, testing...
Hello, On 2009 m. May 21 d., Thursday 13:12:49 Tadeas Moravec wrote: > important, some info about when a new version will come, what must be done > before say 4.3 beta will be in experimental It must be packaged (MUCH (really) work, somewhat low interest recently). > or 4.2.3 in unstable and so? I 4.2.4 is coming in a bit more than a week. 4.2.3 is not much better than 4.2.2 so skipping 4.2.3 does not seem to be a very bad idea. > mean some information about the process of getting a new version to > unstable or experimental and also some information about the current status > of the version in unstable - what prevents it from getting to testing. 4.2.2 is in testing. > What do you think? Would that be too much additional work for the > developers? When you want more info about the process, you just ask here or hang in the respective IRC channels. -- Modestas Vainius signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Info about KDE versions in unstable, testing...
Hello, this is just an idea. What about to put some info about KDE versions in different Debian versions on KDE maintainers website (currently there is no information whether is 4.2.0, 4.2.1, 4.2.2 or 4.2.3 in testing and unstable) and what's more important, some info about when a new version will come, what must be done before say 4.3 beta will be in experimental or 4.2.3 in unstable and so? I mean some information about the process of getting a new version to unstable or experimental and also some information about the current status of the version in unstable - what prevents it from getting to testing. What do you think? Would that be too much additional work for the developers? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kde-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Fixing problems with conflicting package versions (was: Re: kde error (here is the output)
Am Freitag 07 September 2007 schrieb George Adamides: > Hello again and thank you for the propmt reply! Here's the output Hello George! Two things first: 1) Please reply to my message instead of opening a new thread by writing a new mail. 2) Please use proper quoting: http://learn.to/quote > george:~#cat /etc/debian_version > 3.1 You have Debian Sarge. Well at least the base files of it, no guarentee that all packages are from Debian Sarge tough... > #cat /etc/apt/sources.list > #deb file:///cdrom/ sarge main > deb http://ftp.fi.debian.org/debian/ stable main > deb-src http://ftp.fi.debian.org/debian/ stable main > deb http://security.debian.org/ stable/updates main > deb http://dotdeb.pimpmylinux.org/ stable all > deb-src http://dotdeb.pimpmylinux.org/ stable all But since quite some months Etch has been released as stable - thus your sources.list entries with "stable" do not refer to "sarge", but now to "etch"! Did you update your system in the meanwhile? Then you may have a mixture between Sarge and Etch! While it is possible to mix different versions of Debian, I would not recommend it to a novice. I recommend explicetily putting sarge or etch into /etc/apt/sources.list, cause stable will point to a new Debian versions once it gets released. The next one is lenny. But see below for detailed suggestions on how to fix your conflicting package versions. > george:~# apt-cache policy kdat > kdat: > Installed: 4:3.5.7-1 > Candidate: 4:3.5.7-1 > Version Table: > *** 4:3.5.7-1 0 > 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status > 4:3.5.5-4 0 > 500 http://ftp.fi.debian.org stable/main Packages > > I hope this helps. Ok, lets try to make a plan to get it fixed: 1) aptitude purge kdat or if aptitude wants to remove other packages that you think shouldn't be removed apt-get purge kdat instead 2) You seem to have basefiles of Debian Sarge at least, so replace any occurence of "stable" in your /etc/apt/sources.list by "sarge" for now. 3) Lets find out whether you have some packages that are newer than sarge. Install apt-show-versions aptitude install apt-show-versions And post the output of: apt-show-versions | grep "/sarge" | wc -l apt-show-versions | grep "/etch" | wc -l apt-show-versions | grep "/lenny" | wc-l apt-show-versions | grep "/sid" | wc -l It will show the numbers of installed packages from the different Debian versions. For a pure Debian Sarge it should be lots of packages for Sarge, but none for Etch, Lenny or Sid. Then you use "sarge" in /etc/apt/sources.list. You may upgrade to Etch later - I recommend this, especially since KDE 3.5.5 is quite an improvement over KDE 3.3.2 ;-). But for now it is enough to use Sarge to get kdat running. If you already have lots of packages for Etch, I would consider upgrading to Etch completely to have consistent package versions again. Then you would use "etch" or "stable" in /etc/apt/sources.list. I recommend Etch, cause stable will change to Lenny silently, once it is released. You would need to do an upgrade with aptitude / apt-get upgrade / dist-upgrade, but read the Debian upgrade notes and be careful if you are novice with Debian package management. Always check whether the output of aptitude or apt-get makes sense to you before letting it go. If you only have a few packages for Etch, you may try to downgrade them. Well if that mixture of packages work for you, you can even go on with that, but for a beginning I recommend to you not to run packages from different Debian versions together. 4) Once you have a Debian system consistent package versions, you can install KDE, X, kdat as explained before. Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Konqueror and ACLs: difference between SuSE and Debian, between 3.5.x versions?
Yodel! [cc:s appreciated] We're facing a problem here with konquerors acl behaviour: changing from SuSE's 3.4.something to Debian backport 3.5.0 or also http://deb.stosberg.net/'s 3.5.3 backports, acl behaviour on file copying has annoyingly changed to also copy the acl. Old (and "correct" - at least for our use) behaviour was that the target file would get the default acl of the target directory. Anybody knows where that was changed? Can I influence this, if possible without recompiling KDE? As a data point, note that interestingly enough the 3.5.x pakages from SuSE 10.1 retained the old behaviour, so this is either a change which came in a KDE point release, or is a Debian or SuSE specific modification. (Rationale: we use some directories as mailboxes: people would copy their files into these directories to publish them for some other people. Educating people that they need to copy the files, not move them, was possible. Educating them to set the correct acl is IME not possible - users just want to work, they don't want and need to know about how the ACL system works.) thanks in advance -- vbi -- Sterility is inherited. If your parents never had kids, odds are you wont either. -- William R. James in news.admin.net-abuse.email pgpUQxjznuaSA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: List of available KDE3 Debian packages with versions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Dienstag, 24. September 2002 21:48, Tamas Nagy wrote: Hi, thanks for the list !! We were already searching for available debs and for apps where we want to make debs for. The idea is to upload them to ftp://upload.kde.org so they can be sorted into the list of apps and provide a deb source for people having KDE, so only one sources.list line would last to retrieve everything that's available for debian (which makes it *much* easier to look up a program in the end, and the KDE mirrors and traffic is there anyway). If you like to participate, just upload your deb and the according source to ftp://upload.kde.org. Thanks, Ralf > http://mypage.bluewin.ch/kde3-debian/3.0.3/packages.html > http://mypage.bluewin.ch/kde3-debian/3.1/packages.html (beta1) > > Since we have a bunch of active packagers and apt-sources, many people > might be confused about the latest/actual/working versions of > KDE3.0.3/3.1beta1 packages available for Debian. > > Recently I compiled a -not complete- list, but enough for an average > user. This list could be handy to answer these type of questions, and > prevent others like, "Is xyz package available for KDE3.x.y?" > > Again, if you know any other existing package, I will gladly update this > list... > > Enjoy, > Tamas > > PS: I plan to update another script, to help to mirror these packages > locally, allow people in local communities to distribute the packages, > and reduce the traffic on original sites... - -- We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs. - Ralf Nolden [EMAIL PROTECTED] The K Desktop Environment The KDevelop Project http://www.kde.org http://www.kdevelop.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9kNVCu0nKi+w1Ky8RAh4qAJ42Jv4niji/pfCdL0qXdNEbEjtFMgCgopYI oVxwNOd/Np1VvN5FlMbTz+A= =DN9W -END PGP SIGNATURE-
List of available KDE3 Debian packages with versions
http://mypage.bluewin.ch/kde3-debian/3.0.3/packages.html http://mypage.bluewin.ch/kde3-debian/3.1/packages.html (beta1) Since we have a bunch of active packagers and apt-sources, many people might be confused about the latest/actual/working versions of KDE3.0.3/3.1beta1 packages available for Debian. Recently I compiled a -not complete- list, but enough for an average user. This list could be handy to answer these type of questions, and prevent others like, "Is xyz package available for KDE3.x.y?" Again, if you know any other existing package, I will gladly update this list... Enjoy, Tamas PS: I plan to update another script, to help to mirror these packages locally, allow people in local communities to distribute the packages, and reduce the traffic on original sites...
Re: versions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi > > Is it possible to run KDE with Potoato (2.2 r0)? If so, where > > should I go for information? Yes. KDE 2.1.2 Have a look at http://kde.debian.net/ I currently use the mirror deb ftp://ftp.wh9.tu-dresden.de/pub/linux/debian-stuff/KDE2 potato\ main crypto optional > There are some REALLY outdated packages that Ivan compiled for > Potato at kde.debian.net, but they are far from official.. so your > milage may vary. If you can, I would suggest upgrading to Woody or > Sid. They run verry good and stable. Hendrik - -- PGP ID 21F0AC0265C92061 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.0.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8Vrh5IfCsAmXJIGERAnwiAJ0XS/Us1wBa1d/WoUg/o4GPWjhBTACfclal b23DaeTw/6eq7Fiy5V6TbDA= =6KZ3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: versions
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 05:44:44PM +1100, Ray Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi All, > > Just new to the sig so hope this is not out of place. > > Since subscribing I've noticed lots of mail re KDE with Woody and Sid but no > mention of Potato, the version of > Debian I run here for my amateur radio BBS. > > Is it possible to run KDE with Potoato (2.2 r0)? If so, where should I go for > information? > > The aim is to attempt to run LinkT which requires KDE. > > TIA > > Ray Wells VK2TV > There are some REALLY outdated packages that Ivan compiled for Potato at kde.debian.net, but they are far from official.. so your milage may vary. If you can, I would suggest upgrading to Woody or Sid.
versions
Hi All, Just new to the sig so hope this is not out of place. Since subscribing I've noticed lots of mail re KDE with Woody and Sid but no mention of Potato, the version of Debian I run here for my amateur radio BBS. Is it possible to run KDE with Potoato (2.2 r0)? If so, where should I go for information? The aim is to attempt to run LinkT which requires KDE. TIA Ray Wells VK2TV
SOLVED: Re: Packages with multiple versions in kde.tdyc.com?
On Feb 10 2001, Ivan E. Moore II wrote: > u > > there is only 1 copy of noatun in the beta section on kde.tdyc.com. And as > far as I can tell there are no duplicates...my Package builder would warn > me about dups. I went on to read my local mirroring scripts after reading your message and I found a bug: the script that takes care of the beta section (which I'm mirroring with rsync) didn't have the "--delete" option. Thank you very much for the hint, Ivan. []s, Roger... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: Packages with multiple versions in kde.tdyc.com?
> I'd like to make a request. I've noticed that the mirror of > KDE that I'm maintaining locally has many packages with > multiple versions and I'm more or less limited in space. For > instance, in the beta section of the mirror, some packages are > even present with 4 versions (one such example is noatun). > > So, I'd like to ask Ivan or the people responsible for the > kde.tdyc.com repository if it would be possible to remove > these files during the next update of the server. u there is only 1 copy of noatun in the beta section on kde.tdyc.com. And as far as I can tell there are no duplicates...my Package builder would warn me about dups. Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Packages with multiple versions in kde.tdyc.com?
Hi there.
I'd like to make a request. I've noticed that the mirror of
KDE that I'm maintaining locally has many packages with
multiple versions and I'm more or less limited in space. For
instance, in the beta section of the mirror, some packages are
even present with 4 versions (one such example is noatun).
So, I'd like to ask Ivan or the people responsible for the
kde.tdyc.com repository if it would be possible to remove
these files during the next update of the server.
Thank you very much for your attention, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: Packages from different versions at the same time
> I have been updating a couple of machines at my work from kde 1.1.2 to kde > 2.0.1 in potato this morning. I find that some packages which should conflict > among them appear twice resulting in different size icons o duplicate icons > in the desktop and K menu. > > For example the system has > > kdetoys 4:1.1.2 and task-kdetoys 4:2.0.1 at the same time task-kdetoys is empty and doesn't contain anything... > and this happens for kdeadmin kdeutils kdegraphics kdemultimedia kdelibs2g these are taken care of by replaces... for example... kview replaces kdegraphics... > Maybe has to do with your intention to eliminate all task-kde except > task-kde and task-kde-dev ? no..there really should be conflicts in there which would cause the old empty package to be removed...but I haven't done that yet. Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: Packages from different versions at the same time
Le Vendredi 15 Décembre 2000 14:15, Pablo de Vicente a écrit : > I have been updating a couple of machines at my work from kde 1.1.2 to kde > 2.0.1 in potato this morning. I find that some packages which should > conflict among them appear twice resulting in different size icons o > duplicate icons in the desktop and K menu. > > For example the system has > > kdetoys 4:1.1.2 and task-kdetoys 4:2.0.1 at the same time > > and this happens for kdeadmin kdeutils kdegraphics kdemultimedia kdelibs2g > > Maybe has to do with your intention to eliminate all task-kde except > task-kde and task-kde-dev ? I had the same kind of problem. You'd better remove KDE1 completely (just remove qt1g*, kdelibs2* and kdesupport0g*, apt-get will do the rest for you) before installing KDE2. I noticed that if you just upgrade KDE some icons and applnk entries from KDE1 remain. At the same time, try to rename the old .kde, .kderc and Desktop files in each home folder. Even though KDE2 is able to handle files from KDE1, it does not do a great job of it. -- Thibaut Cousin email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] web : http://clrwww.in2p3.fr --- Teach me passion for I fear it`s gone. Show me love, hold the lorn. So much more I wanted to give to the ones who love me. I`m sorry. Time will tell (this bitter farewell) I live no more to shame nor me nor you And you... I wish I didn`t feel for you anymore... Nightwish(http://www.nightwish.com)
Packages from different versions at the same time
Ivan I have been updating a couple of machines at my work from kde 1.1.2 to kde 2.0.1 in potato this morning. I find that some packages which should conflict among them appear twice resulting in different size icons o duplicate icons in the desktop and K menu. For example the system has kdetoys 4:1.1.2 and task-kdetoys 4:2.0.1 at the same time and this happens for kdeadmin kdeutils kdegraphics kdemultimedia kdelibs2g Maybe has to do with your intention to eliminate all task-kde except task-kde and task-kde-dev ? Pablo. _ Pablo de Vicente ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.oan.es (Spain
Re: libqt2.2 versions
> If you want to use woody then do it. KDE 2.x is part of woody. If you > don't want to use woody then don't and use the potato KDE 2.x debs up on > kde.tdyc.com I think I will be upgrading to woody then, potato is getting old ;-) 286 packages to upgrade ... -- -- Tormod Ravnanger Landet
Re: libqt2.2 versions
On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 04:07:10PM +0100, Tormod Ravnanger Landet wrote: > > progeny is a woody based system...that's the problem. woodies version > > numbers are higher on purpose. > > > > I'm not sure what's causing the crashes (haven't dug too much into the > > version's yet to find out tho)... > > Does this mean I can use woody's sources.list lines to get kde2 with no > problems? no..it means that progeny is based on woody. If you want to use woody then do it. KDE 2.x is part of woody. If you don't want to use woody then don't and use the potato KDE 2.x debs up on kde.tdyc.com Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
Re: libqt2.2 versions
> progeny is a woody based system...that's the problem. woodies version > numbers are higher on purpose. > > I'm not sure what's causing the crashes (haven't dug too much into the > version's yet to find out tho)... Does this mean I can use woody's sources.list lines to get kde2 with no problems? Thanks for answering -- Tormod Ravnanger Landet
Re: libqt2.2 versions
> Today, when I did my daily dist-upgrade, I noticed that I was downloading a > new libqt2.2. This is normally good, even more bugs cleaned out, but that was > not the case today. I saw that the package was coming from progeny. It made > konqueror crash, and crash, and crash... > > I found out that this was a older package with a higher version number. What > should I do? My world was falling into pieces (well, I might be exaggerating > a small bit) I had to manually download the right deb and "downgrade", then I > put libqt2.2 on hold. > > What I am wondering is, is there a better way to do this? I could of course > hack together a script that changes the sources.list, unholds, updates, > upgrades, holds libqt2.2, changes the list back, updates and upgrades, but > I'd rather not do this. I could also, of course, do it all manually, but that > wouldn't be so much fun :-) > > I guess what I'm trying to say is that progeny has hijacked libqt2.2 and that > maybe someone would like to know this and ask them to use version numbers > lower than tdyc's, or in some other mysterious way make the problem go away > (or tell me how). > progeny is a woody based system...that's the problem. woodies version numbers are higher on purpose. I'm not sure what's causing the crashes (haven't dug too much into the version's yet to find out tho)... Ivan -- Ivan E. Moore II [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://snowcrash.tdyc.com GPG KeyID=90BCE0DD GPG Fingerprint=F2FC 69FD 0DA0 4FB8 225E 27B6 7645 8141 90BC E0DD
libqt2.2 versions
I have for a while had both kde.tdyc.com and archives.progeny.com in my (ever growing) sources.list. This has not been a problem until today. I have got up-to-date debs of X Windows (4.0.1) and the latest kde2 builds while maintaining potato's stability (well almost :-) Today, when I did my daily dist-upgrade, I noticed that I was downloading a new libqt2.2. This is normally good, even more bugs cleaned out, but that was not the case today. I saw that the package was coming from progeny. It made konqueror crash, and crash, and crash... I found out that this was a older package with a higher version number. What should I do? My world was falling into pieces (well, I might be exaggerating a small bit) I had to manually download the right deb and "downgrade", then I put libqt2.2 on hold. What I am wondering is, is there a better way to do this? I could of course hack together a script that changes the sources.list, unholds, updates, upgrades, holds libqt2.2, changes the list back, updates and upgrades, but I'd rather not do this. I could also, of course, do it all manually, but that wouldn't be so much fun :-) I guess what I'm trying to say is that progeny has hijacked libqt2.2 and that maybe someone would like to know this and ask them to use version numbers lower than tdyc's, or in some other mysterious way make the problem go away (or tell me how). Here is some relevant info Package: libqt2.2 Version: 2:2.2.2-6 Priority: optional Section: libs Maintainer: Ivan E. Moore II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pre-Depends: dpkg (>= 1.6.8) Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1.97), libgl1, libjpeg62, libmng, libstdc++2.10-glibc2.2, xlibs (>= 4.0.1-1), zlib1g (>= 1:1.1.3) Provides: libqt2 Replaces: qt2, libqt2, libqt2.1 Architecture: i386 Filename: dists/progeny/main/binary-i386/libs/libqt2.2_2.2.2-6.deb Size: 1920196 MD5sum: cb1dfddf6b389e0cfc5dfc86c30b38db Description: Qt GUI Library (runtime version). This package contains the files necessary for running applications that use Qt. source: qt2.2 installed-size: 4868 Package: libqt2.2 Version: 2:2.2.2-0.potato.10 Priority: optional Section: libs Maintainer: Ivan E. Moore II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Pre-Depends: dpkg (>= 1.6.8) Depends: libc6 (>= 2.1.2), libjpeg62, libmng (>= 0.9.3-0), libstdc++2.10, libz1, xlib6g (>= 3.3.6-4) Conflicts: libqt2.2-gl Provides: libqt2 Replaces: qt2, libqt2, libqt2.1, libqt2.2-gl Architecture: i386 Filename: dists/potato/main/binary-i386/libs/libqt2.2_2.2.2-0.potato.10_i386.deb Size: 1908266 MD5sum: 7f5d818f3d639bade16f09bfa3fc5b60 Description: Qt GUI Library (runtime version). This package contains the files necessary for running applications that use Qt. . This package was compiled without OPENGL support. installed-size: 4844 source: qt2.2 -- Tormod Ravnanger Landet Happy Debian/kde2 user
