| 1 |
On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:09:12 -0700 (MST), Dmitry Makovey wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Now my question is: how safe is it to do a workaround, and create local |
| 4 |
> version of kde-base/kdelibs-4.2.0-r1 ebuild (say, -r2) which removes |
| 5 |
> the block and just stick with 3.5.9 on 3.5 side ? I really don't feel |
| 6 |
> like unmasking 3.5.10 builds and building them too. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
The devs put that block on for a reason. You are free to remove it safe in |
| 9 |
the knowledge that you can claim sole responsibility for all the broken |
| 10 |
pieces. This seems a lot more risky than running a well-tested ~arch |
| 11 |
package. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> another confusing thing is: |
| 14 |
> !<=kde-base/kdebase-3.5.9-r4 |
| 15 |
> !<=kde-base/kdebase-startkde-3.5.10 |
| 16 |
> which I read as "you're fine using kde-3.5.9 as long as you don't use |
| 17 |
> startkde". kind of weird. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Not at all. All versions of startkde older than 3.5.10-r1 cause a |
| 20 |
problem with KDE4. Using a more recent version or no version at all. |
| 21 |
Some people may have their own custom KDE startup scripts. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive. |
Archives