Hi all,
I am requesting that a moratorium on dependency bumps for dependencies
which are "hard to build" be enacted. This would affect system wide
components which rely on root access and are heavily integrated into
the system. This would not affect things such as UPower or the like -
which aren't
On Monday 06 June 2011 23:05:52 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am requesting that a moratorium on dependency bumps for dependencies
> which are "hard to build" be enacted. This would affect system wide
> components which rely on root access and are heavily integrated into
> the system. This w
On Monday, 6 de June de 2011 17:48:41 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> Personal opinion: I think it is impossible to want to run the latest
> software around an old stack. The overall FOSS world is rolling release
> with everything depending on everything. I cannot see why you want to
> change that with a
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> On Monday 06 June 2011 23:05:52 Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am requesting that a moratorium on dependency bumps for dependencies
>> which are "hard to build" be enacted. This would affect system wide
>> components which rely on roo
On Tuesday, June 7, 2011 06:19:52 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> The Moratorium would extend to all components of the KDE SC
> distribution. Hence kde-core-devel.
imho this is impossible, for the reasons Martin noted.
> The components affected by the Moratorium - namely the Kernel, X and
> ALSA interfaces
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2011 06:19:52 Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> The Moratorium would extend to all components of the KDE SC
>> distribution. Hence kde-core-devel.
>
> imho this is impossible, for the reasons Martin noted.
>
>> The components affecte
On Monday, June 06, 2011 05:48:41 PM Martin Gräßlin wrote:
...
> Personal opinion: I think it is impossible to want to run the latest
> software around an old stack. The overall FOSS world is rolling release
> with everything depending on everything.
You cannot say it like that.
It depends always
Am Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:08:24 -0400
schrieb Maksim Orlovich :
> Why would wayland support have any effect on runtime dependency on
> X11?
http://groups.google.com/group/wayland-display-server/web/building-and-running-wayland
Building mesa
Wayland uses the mesa EGL stack, and all extensions require
Am Tue, 7 Jun 2011 08:51:26 +1200
schrieb Ben Cooksley :
> You are effectively classifying a distribution
No, "distribution version vanilla" - iff at all.
(You still can develop on master, even run kwin - just not use OpenGL
composited kwin from master then - that's not quite the same)
Aside this
On 6/6/11, Thomas Lübking wrote:
> Am Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:08:24 -0400
> schrieb Maksim Orlovich :
>
>> Why would wayland support have any effect on runtime dependency on
>> X11?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/wayland-display-server/web/building-and-running-wayland
> Building mesa
>
> Wayland us
Am Mon, 6 Jun 2011 18:33:28 -0400
schrieb Maksim Orlovich :
> Sorry, my wording was poor:
Might have been my reading as well. Your original question could have
perfectly been read like the clarified one.
> OK, wayland needs recent Mesa at runtime,
> but I am not running Wayland; so why would I ne
- Ursprüngliche Mitteilung -
> On 6/6/11, Thomas Lübking wrote:
> > Am Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:08:24 -0400
> > schrieb Maksim Orlovich :
> >
> > > Why would wayland support have any effect on runtime dependency on
> > > X11?
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/wayland-display-server/web/b
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
>
> - Ursprüngliche Mitteilung -
>> On 6/6/11, Thomas Lübking wrote:
>> > Am Mon, 6 Jun 2011 17:08:24 -0400
>> > schrieb Maksim Orlovich :
>> >
>> > > Why would wayland support have any effect on runtime dependency on
>> > > X11?
>> >
On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:51:32 +1200, Ben Cooksley
wrote:
It should not affect the runtime requirements for X11, but if Mesa
7.11 gets released before our 4.8 dependency freeze, we have to depend
on it.
Can you please clarify what you mean by we *have* to depend on it?
Does this mean which of th
Just as a side-note on SDO: For me SDO is very close to the KDE
development process. If I had my way everyone running KDE master would
also use SDO master. But for some reason that would only be acceptable
if SDO were in KDE's git...
On 06/06/2011 06:53 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Monday, 6 de
On 06/06/2011 10:51 PM, Ben Cooksley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
>> On Tuesday 07 June 2011 08:29:51 Ben Cooksley wrote:
>>> Next KWin. It currently depends upon Mesa 7.10. I have a local revert
>>> in a private local branch which reverts the dependency check cod
On Tuesday 07 June 2011 Jun, Sebastian Trüg wrote:
> Restricting ourselves to old versions (and as a developer anything
> released is old for me) means to restrict the power we have and
> undermines our very development model.
In my opinion, almost always needing the development version of e.g. G
- Original Message -
> IMHO it is out of the question to ask a developer to not implement a
> great new feature just because the dependancies are too young.
I disagree completely. I would very much welcome a policy that states that you
can only depend on stuff that is available in the new
On Tuesday, 7 de June de 2011 07:53:28 Tom Albers wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > IMHO it is out of the question to ask a developer to not implement a
> > great new feature just because the dependancies are too young.
>
> I disagree completely. I would very much welcome a policy that
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 08:21:02 AM Sebastian Trüg wrote:
> Just as a side-note on SDO: For me SDO is very close to the KDE
> development process. If I had my way everyone running KDE master would
> also use SDO master. But for some reason that would only be acceptable
> if SDO were in KDE's git.
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 09:32:09 AM Boudewijn Rempt wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2011 Jun, Sebastian Trüg wrote:
> > Restricting ourselves to old versions (and as a developer anything
> > released is old for me) means to restrict the power we have and
> > undermines our very development model.
>
On Tuesday, 7 de June de 2011 10:14:43 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 08:21:02 AM Sebastian Trüg wrote:
> > Just as a side-note on SDO: For me SDO is very close to the KDE
> > development process. If I had my way everyone running KDE master would
> > also use SDO master. But
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:14:43 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 08:21:02 AM Sebastian Trüg wrote:
> > Just as a side-note on SDO: For me SDO is very close to the KDE
> > development process. If I had my way everyone running KDE master would
> > also use SDO master. But for
On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 08:29:51 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> First Phonon.
> Phonon GStreamer - whilst installable, crashes applications on startup
> - and is therefore unusable. This effectively removes the capability
> to have multimedia playback using a KDE application.
I have used Phonon GStreamer
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Ben Cooksley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:06 AM, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2011 06:19:52 Ben Cooksley wrote:
>>> The Moratorium would extend to all components of the KDE SC
>>> distribution. Hence kde-core-devel.
>>
>> imho this is impossib
On 06/07/2011 01:41 PM, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 de June de 2011 10:14:43 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
>> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 08:21:02 AM Sebastian Trüg wrote:
>>> Just as a side-note on SDO: For me SDO is very close to the KDE
>>> development process. If I had my way everyone runn
On Tuesday 07 June 2011 06:19:52 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > On Monday 06 June 2011 23:05:52 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> I am requesting that a moratorium on dependency bumps for dependencies
> >> which are "hard to build" be enact
On Tuesday 07 June 2011 08:29:51 Ben Cooksley wrote:
> Next KWin. It currently depends upon Mesa 7.10. I have a local revert
> in a private local branch which reverts the dependency check code
> within KWin to continue to allow me to use compositing. Even though I
> have Mesa 7.8, I rarely experien
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 June 2011 08:29:51 Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> Next KWin. It currently depends upon Mesa 7.10. I have a local revert
>> in a private local branch which reverts the dependency check code
>> within KWin to continue to allow me to use c
> Please also note that I will add a runtime requirement to Mesa 7.11 as I
> have here on my system
> the start of the Wayland port which will be in 4.8 and requires Mesa 7.11.
Why would wayland support have any effect on runtime dependency on X11?
30 matches
Mail list logo
