Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc.

[Daniel Robbins]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 04:01:25AM +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:

> I've never claimed branching the CVS is my decision. I posted is as a
> solution to this problem. Wether putting beta KDE packages in Portage
> should be my descision (if I've not been incorrectly informed about my
> role in Gentoo). Since in the end I'm responsible for desktop issues,
> even though Dan is currently responsible for KDE stuff.

Beyond your authority as the Desktop Team Leader, there is an underlying need
for users *and* developers to be able to freely exchange ebuilds and work on
them together.  Both branching CVS and keeping them off CVS prevent this from
happening.  If you don't want KDE 3 beta on CVS, period, (because it's beta
software and buggy) then I support your decision because it makes sense to not
offer broken software to end users.  But at the same time, this needs to be
balanced with the fact that the KDE 3 beta ebuilds will end up being the base
for the KDE 3 final ebuilds.  

If you feel that the package.mask is insufficient, you can modify the
default-1.0_rc6/packages file directly.  It does the same thing but is less
likely to be tampered with.  Add:

<=kde-base/kde-2.3

etc.  Then I can create a "dev-1.0_rc6" profile for danarmak and verwilst to
use that don't have these lines included.  We really have the functionality
built-in to Portage to handle this.

> So, I'd say this particular issue is in the end my descission, wether or
> not to branch the entire portage is _not_ my descision (alone), but I'd
> say I should have a say in the matter. But that is out of the scoop for
> this discussion.

Just remember that we have to somehow work towards a *stable* KDE3 release.  I
think having a separate system profile for KDE3 development might be a good
compromise.

Best Regards,

-- 
Daniel Robbins                                  <drobbins@g.o>
Chief Architect/President                       http://www.gentoo.org 
Gentoo Technologies, Inc.