[gentoo-dev] Minor kde2 ebuilds needed?

[gentoo-dev] Minor kde2 ebuilds needed?

[Dan Armak]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

Some time ago I closed bug #6897 as WONTFIX. It was an ebuild submission for a 
kde2-only app (ie the project seems dead). There is also bug #10318, which is 
also for an ebuild for a minor kde2 app. Seeing two similar bugs close 
together prompted this letter.

An app having no kde3 release, in fact no new release since kde 3.0 itself was 
released last January (as is the case with the above two), is for the most 
part a sign of the project being dead or dormant. Which is an argument 
against having an ebuild in portage. Although, in most cases I suppose 
upstream would still at least accept bugfixes etc.

Also for me maintaining kde2 apps isn't fun. I don't have kde2 installed all 
the time, and I wouldn't enjoy dealing with problems in it that aren't 
present in kde3. I've a committment to Gentoo beyond enjoying myself, so if 
the community wants such ebuilds, I'll add them.

So I'm asking our users & other developers for their opinion on this. Are 
there any objections to not adding kde2 app ebuilds (of course there might be 
exceptions for important stuff, but as a general rule) on these grounds? Does 
anyone want such stuff?

As a followup question: who uses kde 2.2.2 at all on Gentoo, and why? I don't 
propose removing kde2 and existing kde2 app ebuilds from portage, I'm just 
curious.

(I'm not posting on gentoo-user because I'm not subscribed there; someone 
please forward this there, we might as well have a big discussion as possible 
and close this issue once and for all.)

- --
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Matan, Israel
Public GPG key: http://www.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9+45mUI2RQ41fiVERAukgAJ9SXUJGzTKNB3DQkVS9SZmu85xQAwCgg68e
O4vyvWZoRRadWC+A3G1+xJg=
=p4g3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Minor kde2 ebuilds needed?

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Saturday 14 December 2002 21:02, Dan Armak wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So I'm asking our users & other developers for their opinion on this. Are
> there any objections to not adding kde2 app ebuilds (of course there might
> be exceptions for important stuff, but as a general rule) on these grounds?
> Does anyone want such stuff?

I agree with you on the assessment on the "being dormant" of the projects. 
Personally I also only use kde-3

>
> As a followup question: who uses kde 2.2.2 at all on Gentoo, and why? I
> don't propose removing kde2 and existing kde2 app ebuilds from portage, I'm
> just curious.
>
> (I'm not posting on gentoo-user because I'm not subscribed there; someone
> please forward this there, we might as well have a big discussion as
> possible and close this issue once and for all.)

Maybe an option would be to have people (Not you Dan) port the apps to kde-3 
as for most apps it isn't that troublesome at all.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Junior Researcher
Mail: pauldv@cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Minor kde2 ebuilds needed?

[Troy Dack]

Dan Armak said:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>
> Some time ago I closed bug #6897 as WONTFIX. It was an ebuild submission
> for a  kde2-only app (ie the project seems dead). There is also bug
> #10318, which is  also for an ebuild for a minor kde2 app. Seeing two
> similar bugs close  together prompted this letter.

Both users obviously have some degree of Linux/Gentoo competence because
they both submitted ebuilds with their bugs.

> An app having no kde3 release, in fact no new release since kde 3.0
> itself was  released last January (as is the case with the above two),
> is for the most  part a sign of the project being dead or dormant. Which
> is an argument  against having an ebuild in portage. Although, in most
> cases I suppose  upstream would still at least accept bugfixes etc.

Seems like a reasonable assumption.

> Also for me maintaining kde2 apps isn't fun. I don't have kde2 installed
> all  the time, and I wouldn't enjoy dealing with problems in it that
> aren't  present in kde3. I've a committment to Gentoo beyond enjoying
> myself, so if  the community wants such ebuilds, I'll add them.

There's commitment and then there is having to look after things that are
more than likely going to cause maore problems than they are worth.

> So I'm asking our users & other developers for their opinion on this.
> Are  there any objections to not adding kde2 app ebuilds (of course
> there might be  exceptions for important stuff, but as a general rule)
> on these grounds? Does  anyone want such stuff?

My vote is to leave trivial KDE2 apps out of portage.  Gentoo users
*should* be savvy enough to throw together an ebuild themselves (as these
two have demonstrated) and then they can place it in their PORTDIR_OVERLAY
directory.

I wouldn't want to discourage people from submitting bugs (with ebuilds
attached) as this is a method for other users (who might not be quite as
Gentoo proficient) to get themselves an ebuild.  Closing the bugs WONTFIX
with an appropriate comment should do though.

-- 
     Troy Dack

     http://linux.tkdack.com



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Minor kde2 ebuilds needed?

[Dan Armak]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 15 December 2002 00:20, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Maybe an option would be to have people (Not you Dan) port the apps to
> kde-3 as for most apps it isn't that troublesome at all.

That would not solve all the problems. Someone would have to more or less 
actively maintain an app, ie be available to help solve a bug if I can't do 
it myself, not just port-and-forget. Of course if someone takes up 
maintainership of a program and ports it to kde3 I'd be glad to add it to 
portage :-)

>
> Paul

- -- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Matan, Israel
Public GPG key: http://www.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9/clIUI2RQ41fiVERAkL1AKCBwus5lgBtTEB+gvtZvDoluOjOMwCeKIuZ
eHY9aaEbm7vBSlfvgcHui20=
=ud6V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list