From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NO_RELAYS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix, from userid 1105) id D4DA724A37; Tue, 25 Dec 2001 21:33:30 -0600 (CST) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 21:33:30 -0600 From: Daniel Robbins To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuilds for kde3 beta etc. Message-ID: <20011225213330.E17475@chiba.3jane.net> References: <0GOV00D81VGO1H@mxout1.netvision.net.il> <20011224231121.A6926@chiba.3jane.net> <1009282203.1648.4.camel@zoidberg> <20011225094918.D6926@chiba.3jane.net> <1009311584.8850.0.camel@zoidberg> <3C28E425.6000903@theleaf.be> <20011225194701.I6926@chiba.3jane.net> <1009332864.8850.6.camel@zoidberg> <20011225204438.A17475@chiba.3jane.net> <1009335686.8878.8.camel@zoidberg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1009335686.8878.8.camel@zoidberg> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.22.1i Organization: Gentoo Technologies, Inc. Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developer discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 63e43f8c-c2cd-4ea3-b8b0-9eb3201d3bd6 X-Archives-Hash: 7adff8989842a61f88f16d9b559b8412 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 Chief Architect/President http://www.gentoo.org Gentoo Technologies, Inc.