I think that sums up some good answers to my questions, too. Jeff. On 04/05/06, Chris Gianelloni wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 13:48 +0200, Bart Braem wrote: > > Does compiling KDE introduce so many bugs? I mean, let's be serious, all > > other distributions have a stable 3.5.x now. Don't they experience all > > those horrible bugs? > > Compiling KDE doesn't introduce bugs. Compiling KDE with any > combination of USE/CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/GCC/Glibc/etc does. Remember that > we're a from-source distribution. Guys like Debian or Red Hat just have > to compile it *once* then they make a package of it, with exactly *one* > set of options (USE), C(XX)FLAGS, gcc, glibc, etc. making their job > infinitely easier. > > > Seriously, this is really becoming an issue. As I pointed out in a bug I > > filed for a stable KDE (for which I apologize, I should have looked here > > first), some people are leaving Gentoo because of this slow upgrade > > process. > > Honestly, if they're leaving over something so minor, they're free to > go. We're not a commercial distribution. We don't sell Gentoo. We're > not concerned with market share. > > > The classical answer from devs is "it's ready when it's ready". From a > user > > point of view this is very, very vague. Please give users a more clear > > explanation, this creates great frustration when looking at other > > distributions. Because it's stable there. > > As I stated above, they have a *much* lower barrier of entry for making > something stable than we do. We've tried making this explanation over > and over again. The problem is that every single version of $package, > people don't look at the last explanation and ask again... and again... > and again... and again. It gets very old to answer the same question > over and over again. The simple answer is really "when we don't have > major showstopper bugs anymore". Again, remember that we have to > support countless combinations from our users. Other distributions need > to support only one. They can use forms of tricks to get it to compile > that *one* time, including adding patches and other things that might > not be suitable for a from-source distribution. > > > These are my 2 cents as a user. One that loves Gentoo. One that loves > KDE. > > One that's frustrated by the current situation. I am a CS so I know how > > hard programming can be, don't get me wrong there. I do appreciate what > you > > guys do. But I can't understand why you do it this way right now. > > Quite simply, we don't want to give you crap. > > If we followed others blindly, as so many users suggest, then we would > have stabilized KDE 3.5 ages ago, and every single one of you KDE users > would be complaining about how our QA sucks because KDE doesn't compile > or breaks badly in so many places. We would hear about how Gentoo sucks > where they can't even test such a major application as KDE properly. We > would have users leaving in droves. Now, we can't have both fast > stabilization *and* actual stability, so we err on the side of caution. > We don't like hearing complaints any more than anyone else, but we'd > rather hear a few "why isn't KDE stable yet" questions than *everyone* > saying we suck because KDE is broken. > > I hope that sums it up for you. > > By the way, this isn't just for KDE. This is how we do *every* package. > > -- > Chris Gianelloni > Release Engineering - Strategic Lead > x86 Architecture Team > Games - Developer > Gentoo Linux > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQBEWfErkT4lNIS36YERAtKVAKDE9aVxS6dq34fleM1WPi2vOC9TGgCfb+ct > GhTF595T05xwiL60103fkAk= > =YYvC > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ Argument against Linux number 6,033: "...So this is like most Linux viruses. You have to download the virus yourself, become root, install it and then run it. Seems like a lot of work just to experience what you can get on Windows with a lot less trouble."