From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2GK6WK7027170 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:06:33 GMT Received: from mx3.actcom.co.il ([192.114.47.65] helo=smtp3.actcom.co.il) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DBeml-00056h-4M for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:06:31 +0000 Received: from alpha.danarmak.homelinux.net (l85-130-132-135.broadband.actcom.net.il [85.130.132.135]) by smtp3.actcom.co.il (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2GK6Q23031559 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:06:30 +0200 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) (TLS: TLSv1/SSLv3,128bits,RC4-MD5) by alpha.danarmak.homelinux.net with esmtp; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:29:22 +0200 id 00FA8878.42389722.00006C89 From: Dan Armak Organization: Gentoo Technologies, Inc. To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE split ebuilds Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:29:21 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <423736A9.5040101@tomaw.org> In-Reply-To: <423736A9.5040101@tomaw.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: , , List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2509151.Z6L81nFmo8"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200503162229.21736.danarmak@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: 306f9ad5-7a31-4147-965b-292a2799edb5 X-Archives-Hash: e17be1c34ffc27a02d30bd4251390bc5 --nextPart2509151.Z6L81nFmo8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 15 March 2005 21:25, Tom Wesley wrote: > Hey > > I've seen several queries regarding KDE's new split ebuilds and the > version numbers used for specific packages. It seems that all of the > KDE 3.4 packages have been versioned as 3.4. > > Should kmail, kopete etc not be using their own version numbers with the > meta-packages being versioned based on the kde release number? =20 > IMO this would make more sense, especially when reading the kopete websit= e,=20 > finding the latest version is 0.9.2 and then noticing that portage only=20 > has 3.4. In my experience most KDE users have no idea offhand what the individual ap= p=20 versions are and which versions belong to which kde.org release. They'd be= =20 confused. If a lot of users told me I'm wrong, I guess I'd be willing to concede this= =20 point... BTW, what do other distros use? Another problem is that there are a few KDE devs who are the same: they don= 't=20 bother to put real version numbers on their apps (and especially libs), and= =20 they stay stuck at 0.0.1, or don't always receive a version number upgrade= =20 when they change. I can't find an example offhand now, but I remember seein= g=20 such before... And a third problem: it'd make it much easier for us to make a versioning/d= ep=20 mistake (think about updating 300 differently-schemed version numbers)=20 without noticing. =2D-=20 Dan Armak Gentoo Linux developer (KDE) Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key =46ingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 --nextPart2509151.Z6L81nFmo8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCOJchUI2RQ41fiVERAjHqAJ0arWO0UvOhRRDzEHhQEQCtS8M5oQCdHzla qMrO1zWwyr3nsvG1BqP369Y= =oOc5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2509151.Z6L81nFmo8-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list