| 1 |
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 11:12, Chris Bainbridge wrote: |
| 2 |
> Surely the question isn't whether the upgrade is perfect, but whether |
| 3 |
> it's better than the current stable release? |
| 4 |
It is not. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> 'find /usr/portage/kde-base -name '*3.4.3*.patch' |wc -l' shows 15 |
| 7 |
> patches, 3.5.1 has 11 patches, and 3.5.2 has 6 patches. (I realise |
| 8 |
> that isn't a perfect patch count...) |
| 9 |
Some of the patches are not in files/ for 3.5.x series. Also, many of the |
| 10 |
problems faced are more severe than 3.4.x series up to now. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> As far as I can see the *ebuilds* for kde work fine. If the newer |
| 13 |
> versions of kde have the problems you describe, then they should be |
| 14 |
> package.masked. |
| 15 |
There's a big difference between theory and practice. We already get enough |
| 16 |
request to mark 3.5 stable (hell we had request to mark it stable when there |
| 17 |
were at least two systematical crashes for everyone), two weeks after 3.5.0 |
| 18 |
release IIRC, if we were to put it under package.mask, we really would be |
| 19 |
submerged by bug reports and mails about that. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Anyway, ~arch is not technically broken as we patch that as soon as humanly |
| 22 |
possible, so it's not a p.mask kind of problem (a part from umbrello, but |
| 23 |
that's no news at all). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I can ensure you we'd like to mark 3.5 stable as much as you do, probably even |
| 26 |
more as there are fixed things, but it's not possible for now. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/ |
| 30 |
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE |
Archives