[gentoo-dev] KDE split ebuilds

[gentoo-dev] KDE split ebuilds

[Tom Wesley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 521 bytes --]

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?  IMO this 
would make more sense, especially when reading the kopete website, 
finding the latest version is 0.9.2 and then noticing that portage only 
has 3.4.

-- 
Tom Wesley <tom@tomaw.org>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE split ebuilds

[Sven Vermeulen]

Tom Wesley wrote:
> Should kmail, kopete etc not be using their own version numbers with the 
> meta-packages being versioned based on the kde release number?  IMO this 
> would make more sense, especially when reading the kopete website, 
> finding the latest version is 0.9.2 and then noticing that portage only 
> has 3.4.

Would that mean individual masks on >= 3.0.0 versions for each of these 
tools? Sounds scary...

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
  ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
  (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
  (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Documentation & PR
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE split ebuilds

[Dan Armak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1552 bytes --]

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?  
> IMO this would make more sense, especially when reading the kopete website, 
> finding the latest version is 0.9.2 and then noticing that portage only 
> has 3.4.
In my experience most KDE users have no idea offhand what the individual app 
versions are and which versions belong to which kde.org release. They'd be 
confused.

If a lot of users told me I'm wrong, I guess I'd be willing to concede this 
point...

BTW, what do other distros use?

Another problem is that there are a few KDE devs who are the same: they don't 
bother to put real version numbers on their apps (and especially libs), and 
they stay stuck at 0.0.1, or don't always receive a version number upgrade 
when they change. I can't find an example offhand now, but I remember seeing 
such before...

And a third problem: it'd make it much easier for us to make a versioning/dep 
mistake (think about updating 300 differently-schemed version numbers) 
without noticing.

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD  0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE split ebuilds

[Francesco Riosa]

Dan Armak ha scritto:

>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?  
>>IMO this would make more sense, especially when reading the kopete website, 
>>finding the latest version is 0.9.2 and then noticing that portage only 
>>has 3.4.
>>    
>>
>In my experience most KDE users have no idea offhand what the individual app 
>versions are and which versions belong to which kde.org release. They'd be 
>confused.
>
>If a lot of users told me I'm wrong, I guess I'd be willing to concede this 
>point...
>
>BTW, what do other distros use?
>
>Another problem is that there are a few KDE devs who are the same: they don't 
>bother to put real version numbers on their apps (and especially libs), and 
>they stay stuck at 0.0.1, or don't always receive a version number upgrade 
>when they change. I can't find an example offhand now, but I remember seeing 
>such before...
>
>And a third problem: it'd make it much easier for us to make a versioning/dep 
>mistake (think about updating 300 differently-schemed version numbers) 
>without noticing.
>
>  
>
one question only:
one of the point in having a splitted kde was that it make not necessary 
upgrade all kde because of a update of a single program.
How do you can achive this mantaining all the packages at the same version?
maybe with -r? versioning ?

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE split ebuilds

[Tom Wesley]

Dan Armak wrote:
> 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?  
>>IMO this would make more sense, especially when reading the kopete website, 
>>finding the latest version is 0.9.2 and then noticing that portage only 
>>has 3.4.
> 
> In my experience most KDE users have no idea offhand what the individual app 
> versions are and which versions belong to which kde.org release. They'd be 
> confused.
> 
> If a lot of users told me I'm wrong, I guess I'd be willing to concede this 
> point...
> 
> BTW, what do other distros use?

The only other distro I have recollection of is Debian and they have the 
packages at the version number of the software.  That is, they have a 
kmail-1.5 being part of kde-3.3.x [1]

> 
> Another problem is that there are a few KDE devs who are the same: they don't 
> bother to put real version numbers on their apps (and especially libs), and 
> they stay stuck at 0.0.1, or don't always receive a version number upgrade 
> when they change. I can't find an example offhand now, but I remember seeing 
> such before...

Probably.  Dated version numbers could perhaps help?  Stuff in 
kdenonbeta probably suffers from never being released or versioned.

> 
> And a third problem: it'd make it much easier for us to make a versioning/dep 
> mistake (think about updating 300 differently-schemed version numbers) 
> without noticing.
> 

I can't disagree that p'masking a bucket-load of packages, all at 
different versions will be a pain.  Also, upgrading etc may require a 
small army of gnome's (pun intended) to complete the task in a timely 
manner.

Do any kde applications release outside of kde's main releases?  (I have 
a vague recollection of kopete doing this, but no others)

   1: http://packages.debian.org/unstable/mail/kmail
-- 
Tom Wesley <tom@tomaw.org>
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE split ebuilds

[Graham Murray]

Tom Wesley <tom@tomaw.org> writes:

> Do any kde applications release outside of kde's main releases?  (I have 
> a vague recollection of kopete doing this, but no others)

Some KDE applications, such as AmaroK, deliberately did not include
themselves in the KDE releases purely so that they could release more
often than KDE updates are released.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE split ebuilds

[Dan Armak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 845 bytes --]

On Wednesday 16 March 2005 23:48, Francesco Riosa wrote:
> one question only:
> one of the point in having a splitted kde was that it make not necessary
> upgrade all kde because of a update of a single program.
> How do you can achive this mantaining all the packages at the same version?
> maybe with -r? versioning ?
If eg konqeror isn't updated in 3.4.1, only the 3.4.0 ebuild will exist. Doing 
an emerge kdebase-meta on a clean system will then install some packages at 
version 3.4.1, and some (like konqueror) at 3.4.0.

It takes some code to maintain the proper deps for this, but a lot less than 
for the general case propose by the OP.

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD  0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE split ebuilds

[Dan Armak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1019 bytes --]

On Thursday 17 March 2005 00:07, Tom Wesley wrote:
> I can't disagree that p'masking a bucket-load of packages, all at
> different versions will be a pain.  Also, upgrading etc may require a
> small army of gnome's (pun intended) to complete the task in a timely
> manner.
Indeed. Which is why I don't want to do this.

>
> Do any kde applications release outside of kde's main releases?  (I have
> a vague recollection of kopete doing this, but no others)
Usually they stop when, or soon after, they are made part of an official 
kde.org package. I can't recall any app that does this right now. Anyway, for 
the very few that do, we can include extra releases with made-up version 
numbers (or dates) that sort of make sense. These cases are so rare that this 
doesn't fall into the 'confusing users' category IMHO.

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD  0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] KDE split ebuilds

[Tom Wesley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1089 bytes --]

Dan Armak wrote:
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 00:07, Tom Wesley wrote:
> 
>>I can't disagree that p'masking a bucket-load of packages, all at
>>different versions will be a pain.  Also, upgrading etc may require a
>>small army of gnome's (pun intended) to complete the task in a timely
>>manner.
> 
> Indeed. Which is why I don't want to do this.
> 
> 
>>Do any kde applications release outside of kde's main releases?  (I have
>>a vague recollection of kopete doing this, but no others)
> 
> Usually they stop when, or soon after, they are made part of an official 
> kde.org package. I can't recall any app that does this right now. Anyway, for 
> the very few that do, we can include extra releases with made-up version 
> numbers (or dates) that sort of make sense. These cases are so rare that this 
> doesn't fall into the 'confusing users' category IMHO.

Given those facts you've probably decided upon the best numbering 
scheme...  Confused users can easily be directed to use the KDE version 
numbers I guess...
Thanks for entertaining the idea ;)

-- 
Tom Wesley <tom@tomaw.org>

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: KDE split ebuilds

[Duncan]

Dan Armak posted <200503162229.21736.danarmak@gentoo.org>, excerpted
below,  on Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:29:21 +0200:

> 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?  
>> IMO this would make more sense, especially when reading the kopete website, 
>> finding the latest version is 0.9.2 and then noticing that portage only 
>> has 3.4.
> In my experience most KDE users have no idea offhand what the individual app 
> versions are and which versions belong to which kde.org release. They'd be 
> confused.
> 
> If a lot of users told me I'm wrong, I guess I'd be willing to concede this 
> point...

This seems an appropriate place to mention that I was pleasantly surprised
to see an ARTS version that actually matched the KDE version, this time
around. =8^)  I always wondered why they hadn't jumped the version to
match, and am glad it happened now, regardless of whether it was Gentoo or
KDE that made the decision.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman in
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: KDE split ebuilds

[Dan Armak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 630 bytes --]

On Friday 18 March 2005 18:21, Duncan wrote:
> This seems an appropriate place to mention that I was pleasantly surprised
> to see an ARTS version that actually matched the KDE version, this time
> around. =8^)  I always wondered why they hadn't jumped the version to
> match, and am glad it happened now, regardless of whether it was Gentoo or
> KDE that made the decision.
It was gentoo. The upstream version is still 1.x.y not 3.x.y.

-- 
Dan Armak
Gentoo Linux developer (KDE)
Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key
Fingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD  0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]