1 |
080907 Marcus D. Hanwell wrote: |
2 |
> The slotting of KDE 3.* and KDE 4.* was never a question |
3 |
> but whether we really need to keep slotting of minor KDE versions |
4 |
> in the new 4.* line, i.e. KDE 4.1 and 4.2 slotted on the same system. |
5 |
|
6 |
Yes, I understood that (smile). |
7 |
|
8 |
> It is no real issue to be able to run a slotted KDE 4.2 install |
9 |
> alongside an FHS install of KDE 4.* <via an overlay>. |
10 |
|
11 |
In that case, much of my unease disappears: |
12 |
users should be willing to learn how to use overlays. |
13 |
|
14 |
> This helps to make the normal KDE install much simpler to maintain |
15 |
> with less gradual build up of cruft over the years, |
16 |
> ie multiple older slots the user is no longer using. |
17 |
> It also brings us into line with the FHS compliant Qt 4 ebuilds |
18 |
|
19 |
Yes, if there is a genuine improvement in maintainability for the devs, |
20 |
that's a real reason for making the change. |
21 |
|
22 |
In another msg, you said nothing will change till 4.2 ( 0901xx ) |
23 |
& by then hopefully KDE 4 will have settled down to normal usability. |
24 |
|
25 |
> The purpose of these posts was to solicit further feedback |
26 |
> before things are pushed to the main tree. |
27 |
|
28 |
Well, you have mine (grin). |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
========================,,============================================ |
32 |
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb |
33 |
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto |
34 |
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca |