| 1 |
On 04/04/06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <flameeyes@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> usable state-, KDE 3.5.1 was a bit better but stills some patches were |
| 3 |
> needed, KDE 3.5.2 is in portage since less than a month, and already had a |
| 4 |
> few patches with revbumps to few memleaks and crashes, a new kdelibs revbump |
| 5 |
> is also planned, and umbrello 3.5.2 is regressed compared to 3.5.1 (that |
| 6 |
> still, vanilla, wasn't usable for activity diagrams at all). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Surely the question isn't whether the upgrade is perfect, but whether |
| 9 |
it's better than the current stable release? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
'find /usr/portage/kde-base -name '*3.4.3*.patch' |wc -l' shows 15 |
| 12 |
patches, 3.5.1 has 11 patches, and 3.5.2 has 6 patches. (I realise |
| 13 |
that isn't a perfect patch count...) |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
>From the handbook: "The use of ~arch denotes an ebuild requires |
| 16 |
testing. The use of package.mask denotes that the application or |
| 17 |
library itself is deemed unstable." |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
As far as I can see the *ebuilds* for kde work fine. If the newer |
| 20 |
versions of kde have the problems you describe, then they should be |
| 21 |
package.masked. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I think at this point it does more harm than good to be lagging behind |
| 24 |
the current upstream kde - last time I checked the kde bugzilla |
| 25 |
wouldn't even accept bug reports for the kde currently marked stable |
| 26 |
as it was too old, and if bugs can't be filed then it's clearly |
| 27 |
"unsupported upstream" and time to upgrade. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives