On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:09:12 -0700 (MST), Dmitry Makovey wrote:

> Now my question is: how safe is it to do a workaround, and create local
> version of kde-base/kdelibs-4.2.0-r1 ebuild (say, -r2) which removes
> the block and just stick with 3.5.9 on 3.5 side ? I really don't feel
> like unmasking 3.5.10 builds and building them too.

The devs put that block on for a reason. You are free to remove it safe in
the knowledge that you can claim sole responsibility for all the broken
pieces. This seems a lot more risky than running a well-tested ~arch
package.

> another confusing thing is:
> 	!<=kde-base/kdebase-3.5.9-r4
> 	!<=kde-base/kdebase-startkde-3.5.10
> which I read as "you're fine using kde-3.5.9 as long as you don't use
> startkde". kind of weird.

Not at all. All versions of startkde older than 3.5.10-r1 cause a
problem with KDE4. Using a more recent version or no version at all.
Some people may have their own custom KDE startup scripts.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.