[gentoo-user] KDE version

[gentoo-user] KDE version

[contiemilio]

Hi everybody.
To-day I installed kdebase using "emerge kdebase".
But the installed version was 3.4.3.
Is it right? Did not KDE reach 3.5 version?

emilio

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] KDE version

[Uwe Thiem]

On 21 March 2006 22:13, contiemilio@virgilio.it wrote:
> Hi everybody.
> To-day I installed kdebase using "emerge kdebase".
> But the installed version was 3.4.3.
> Is it right? Did not KDE reach 3.5 version?

You did an "emerge --sync" in beforehand, didn't you?

Uwe

-- 
Why do consumers keep buying products they will live to curse?
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] KDE version

[Petr Uzel]

> Hi everybody.
> To-day I installed kdebase using "emerge kdebase".
> But the installed version was 3.4.3.
> Is it right? Did not KDE reach 3.5 version?

Hi, that's normal, because all kde-3.5 packages are still masked. You have to 
unmask them to get kde-3.5 installed.
This link should help you :

http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Update_KDE_3.3_to_KDE_3.4

Petr

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] KDE version

[Thierry de Coulon]

On Tuesday 21 March 2006 21.13, contiemilio@virgilio.it wrote:
> Hi everybody.
> To-day I installed kdebase using "emerge kdebase".
> But the installed version was 3.4.3.
> Is it right? Did not KDE reach 3.5 version?
>
> emilio

I did not sync recently but (on my amd64 machine) emerge --pretend =kde-3.5.0 
shows the package are still masked with keyword.

Thierry

-- 
The problem with the world is stupidity. Not saying there should be a
capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the
safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
Frank Zappa
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] KDE version

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Tuesday 21 March 2006 22:12, Thierry de Coulon wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 March 2006 21.13, contiemilio@virgilio.it wrote:
> > Hi everybody.
> > To-day I installed kdebase using "emerge kdebase".
> > But the installed version was 3.4.3.
> > Is it right? Did not KDE reach 3.5 version?
> >
> > emilio
>
> I did not sync recently but (on my amd64 machine) emerge --pretend
> =kde-3.5.0 shows the package are still masked with keyword.

which is quite sad - KDE 3.5.1 is out for ages!

But the times, that gentoo was pretty actual in the stable tree are over.

Is this so bad with gnome too?
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] KDE version

[Philip Webb]

060321 Thierry de Coulon wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 March 2006 21.13, contiemilio@virgilio.it wrote:
>> To-day I installed kdebase using "emerge kdebase".
>> But the installed version was 3.4.3.
>> Is it right? Did not KDE reach 3.5 version?

KDE 3.5.1 is in testing, ie stable upstream but ebuilds not fully tested.
I've been using 3.5.1 since 060306 without any problems:
simply make USE=~x86 for the packages you want.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] KDE version

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

On Tuesday 21 March 2006 16:40, "Hemmann, Volker Armin" 
<volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] KDE 
version':
> On Tuesday 21 March 2006 22:12, Thierry de Coulon wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 March 2006 21.13, contiemilio@virgilio.it wrote:
> > > To-day I installed kdebase using "emerge kdebase".
> > > But the installed version was 3.4.3.
> > > Is it right? Did not KDE reach 3.5 version?
> >
> > I did not sync recently but (on my amd64 machine) emerge --pretend
> > =kde-3.5.0 shows the package are still masked with keyword.
>
> which is quite sad - KDE 3.5.1 is out for ages!

The KDE team is a bunch of weenies. :P

Seriously, I think they hold package releases (even point releases) in 
package.mask and ~ARCH too long.  HOWEVER, they are provide (IIRC) both 
split and monolithic ebuilds, which is quite a bit of work to get 
completely right.

> But the times, that gentoo was pretty actual in the stable tree are
> over.

You do realize the above sentence makes no freakin' sense, right?

> Is this so bad with gnome too?

<sarcasm>
What's gnome?
</sarcasm>

-- 
"If there's one thing we've established over the years,
it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest
clue what's best for them in terms of package stability."
-- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] KDE version

[Norman Rieß]

Hemmann, Volker Armin schrieb:

>
>Is this so bad with gnome too?
>  
>
Yes.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] KDE version

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Wednesday 22 March 2006 02:42, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:

>
> > But the times, that gentoo was pretty actual in the stable tree are
> > over.
>
> You do realize the above sentence makes no freakin' sense, right?
>

nope.
If I had realized that, I would have not written it.

Gentoo was once VERY up to date, but than the 'stable mania' started and since 
then, gentoo needs way to much time to get new versions into the stable tree.

3.5.0 is out for ages.
3.5.1 is out for ages

Stable is 3.4.3...

that is so sad.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] KDE version

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1119 bytes --]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:31:14 +0100, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:

> Gentoo was once VERY up to date, but than the 'stable mania' started
> and since then, gentoo needs way to much time to get new versions into
> the stable tree.

That's because stable is for people who consider stable more important
than new. They don't want to be continually updating their systems. No
one is forcing anyone to run a stable KDE, although it would make life
easier if it were possible to put "kde-base/* ~arch" in portage.keywords.

Gentoo is still VERY up to date, but only for those who choose the very
up to date option.

All the same, KDE 3.5.1 has been out for almost two months (I can
understand the reticence in marking a .0 release stable) with very few
patches applied. Considering the number of people that are using it
successfully, that does seem rather a long time. However, Gentoo is a
volunteer distro, and KDE is a BIG set of packages, it may simply be
that there are not enough people available to work on the hundreds of
ebuilds involved.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Assassins do it from behind.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 191 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] KDE version

[Petr Kocmid]

On Wednesday 22 March 2006 08:31, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 March 2006 02:42, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > > But the times, that gentoo was pretty actual in the stable tree are
> > > over.
> > You do realize the above sentence makes no freakin' sense, right?
> nope.
> If I had realized that, I would have not written it.
> Gentoo was once VERY up to date, but than the 'stable mania' started and
> since then, gentoo needs way to much time to get new versions into the
> stable tree.
> 3.5.0 is out for ages.
> 3.5.1 is out for ages
> Stable is 3.4.3...
> that is so sad.

I am already running 3.5.1 for ages. Perhaps ' so sadness' is no proper mental 
attitude to achieve the upgrade. package.keywords is my friend, 300+ packages 
at bleeding edge versions.

-- 

Petr
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Re: KDE version

[Christopher O'Neill]

I've been using 3.5.1 for a while also, imo it should stay in unstable
for now.  There are a few bugs with the desktop, Konqueror and
Kaffeine also has a habit of seg-faulting.  I am considering
rebuilding it with the debug flags to I can submit some useful bug
reports.

I think packages in stable should be stable as the name says, not
simply "older than 30 days" or whatever ;-)


- Chris

On 23/03/06, Petr Kocmid <Petr.Kocmid@project-bhairava.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 March 2006 08:31, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> > On Wednesday 22 March 2006 02:42, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> > > > But the times, that gentoo was pretty actual in the stable tree are
> > > > over.
> > > You do realize the above sentence makes no freakin' sense, right?
> > nope.
> > If I had realized that, I would have not written it.
> > Gentoo was once VERY up to date, but than the 'stable mania' started and
> > since then, gentoo needs way to much time to get new versions into the
> > stable tree.
> > 3.5.0 is out for ages.
> > 3.5.1 is out for ages
> > Stable is 3.4.3...
> > that is so sad.
>
> I am already running 3.5.1 for ages. Perhaps ' so sadness' is no proper
> mental
> attitude to achieve the upgrade. package.keywords is my friend, 300+
> packages
> at bleeding edge versions.
>
> --
>
> Petr
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>


--

Chris

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: KDE version

[Teresa and Dale]

Christopher O'Neill wrote:

>I've been using 3.5.1 for a while also, imo it should stay in unstable
>for now.  There are a few bugs with the desktop, Konqueror and
>Kaffeine also has a habit of seg-faulting.  I am considering
>rebuilding it with the debug flags to I can submit some useful bug
>reports.
>
>I think packages in stable should be stable as the name says, not
>simply "older than 30 days" or whatever ;-)
>
>
>- Chris
>
>  
>
Well, the only bug I have seen is when I try to change the permissions
with Konqueror and right clicking and selecting properties.  It gives me
a error and changes some of the changes but not all of them.  It takes
me a couple times to get them right.  I have not had any seg faulting
though.  Are you using good flags?  When I had some bad flags I had seg
faulting a lot, not just KDE either.

Dale
:-)
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: KDE version

[Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.]

On Thursday 23 March 2006 11:22, "Christopher O'Neill" 
<chris.oneill@gmail.com> wrote about '[gentoo-user] Re: KDE version':
> I've been using 3.5.1 for a while also, imo it should stay in unstable
> for now.  There are a few bugs with the desktop, Konqueror and
> Kaffeine also has a habit of seg-faulting.  I am considering
> rebuilding it with the debug flags to I can submit some useful bug
> reports.
>
> I think packages in stable should be stable as the name says, not
> simply "older than 30 days" or whatever ;-)

It's not /simply/ older than 30 days.  They have to be ~ARCH for /at least/ 
30 days, so that ~ARCH users have plenty of time to find and file bugs 
that exist.  It's rather hard to say a package is stable before it's gone 
through the ~ARCH users cleanly, so I'd say that "stable" implies "older 
than 30 days" therefore "stable and older than 30 days" == "stable".

So, really, stable gentoo packages are stable as the name says. :)

(That said, I love my ~amd64 machine; but I regularly upgrade and have 
enough time to file most to all of the bugs I find.)

-- 
"If there's one thing we've established over the years,
it's that the vast majority of our users don't have the slightest
clue what's best for them in terms of package stability."
-- Gentoo Developer Ciaran McCreesh
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: KDE version

[Hemmann, Volker Armin]

On Thursday 23 March 2006 18:22, Christopher O'Neill wrote:
> I've been using 3.5.1 for a while also, imo it should stay in unstable
> for now.  There are a few bugs with the desktop, Konqueror and
> Kaffeine also has a habit of seg-faulting.  I am considering
> rebuilding it with the debug flags to I can submit some useful bug
> reports.
>
> I think packages in stable should be stable as the name says, not
> simply "older than 30 days" or whatever ;-)
>

but it does not become 'better' by staying in unstable. And KDE 3.4.3 has its 
bugs too.. a lot of them fixed in the 3.5 releases.

3.5.1 is not in stable, and 3.5.2 is already looming around the corner....
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] KDE version

[Rafael Fernández López]

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

Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 March 2006 16:40, "Hemmann, Volker Armin" 
> <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote about 'Re: [gentoo-user] KDE 
> version':
>> On Tuesday 21 March 2006 22:12, Thierry de Coulon wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 21 March 2006 21.13, contiemilio@virgilio.it wrote:
>>>> To-day I installed kdebase using "emerge kdebase".
>>>> But the installed version was 3.4.3.
>>>> Is it right? Did not KDE reach 3.5 version?
>>> I did not sync recently but (on my amd64 machine) emerge --pretend
>>> =kde-3.5.0 shows the package are still masked with keyword.
>> which is quite sad - KDE 3.5.1 is out for ages!
> 
> The KDE team is a bunch of weenies. :P
> 
> Seriously, I think they hold package releases (even point releases) in 
> package.mask and ~ARCH too long.  HOWEVER, they are provide (IIRC) both 
> split and monolithic ebuilds, which is quite a bit of work to get 
> completely right.
> 
>> But the times, that gentoo was pretty actual in the stable tree are
>> over.
> 
> You do realize the above sentence makes no freakin' sense, right?
> 
>> Is this so bad with gnome too?
> 
> <sarcasm>
> What's gnome?
> </sarcasm>
> 

	Just a note: KDE dev don't decide whenever it becomes to ARCH instead
of ~ARCH, that is an ARCH gentoo maintainers. They are supposed to be
the ARCH specialists. When they think some app is stable in their ARCH,
it will be moved to ARCH from ~ARCH.

	But if you wanna have the latest packages, just ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~ARCH"
where ARCH is your computers' architecture. Maybe your system will be a
little more unstable, but from my point of view, it is still stable
using ~x86 (mine haven't broken yet).

Bye !!
Rafael Fernández López.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEI1Qc9RRlaicc3IERAt6vAJ4wk9jf6jFgzHTb9ZS1dXSLxxiWsQCcDVLJ
NGm98P+IE3BgyRIIP1JWjK0=
=SL08
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: KDE version

[Philip Webb]

060324 Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> KDE 3.4.3 has its bugs too.. a lot of them fixed in the 3.5 releases.
> 3.5.1 is not in stable, and 3.5.2 is already looming around the corner....

Isn't the solution to have  3  levels: 'testing', 'probation' & 'stable' ?
'Testing' would be literally that, asking for feedback from users;
'probation' wb already tested for a defined period -- say  30 days  --
without any bugs appearing which are likely to affect typical users;
'stable' wb firmly believed to be free of any bugs.

KDE 3.5.1 would belong in 'probation' at present,
3.4.3 might be 'stable' depending on how many bugs it's known to have.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: KDE version

[Iain Buchanan]

On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 21:30 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
> 
> Isn't the solution to have  3  levels: 'testing', 'probation' & 'stable' ?

There are 3 levels:

Masked, ~ARCH, and ARCH.

Masked you can install if you want, like gnome-2.14, but it's your own
fault if it kills your system.

~ARCH you can install if you want, it may do bad things, but if so
you're probably the first to know about it.  File a bug and help move it
to ARCH.

ARCH is good for everyone else.
-- 
Iain Buchanan <iaindb at netspace dot net dot au>

Humor in the Court:
Q: What is the meaning of sperm being present?
A: It indicates intercourse.
Q: Male sperm?
A. That is the only kind I know.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: KDE version

[Nagatoro]

Iain Buchanan wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 21:30 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
>> Isn't the solution to have  3  levels: 'testing', 'probation' & 'stable' ?
> 
> There are 3 levels:
> 
> Masked, ~ARCH, and ARCH.
> 
> Masked you can install if you want, like gnome-2.14, but it's your own
> fault if it kills your system.

== Upstream unstable, ebuild unstable.

> 
> ~ARCH you can install if you want, it may do bad things, but if so
> you're probably the first to know about it.  File a bug and help move it
> to ARCH.

== Upstream stable, ebuild testing.
> 
> ARCH is good for everyone else.

== Upstream stable, ebuild stable

So it's not just the software that needs to be stable, the ebuild
needs to be tested too.

-- 
Naga
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: KDE version

[Schleimer, Ben]

> Isn't the solution to have  3  levels: 'testing',
> 'probation' & 'stable' ?
> 'Testing' would be literally that, asking for
> feedback from users;
> 'probation' wb already tested for a defined period
> -- say  30 days  --

How about a crazier idea:

Each package has a stability rating from 0-99 per
architecture. 
0 means totally untested/unstable and 99 means rock
solid/no bugs. (0-33~unstable, 34-66~testing,
67-99~stable)
Each new package starts at 50. Whenever a user uses
the package, he can then vote on it by giving +1 or -1
(on the website or through portage). As a package
gains rating points, more and more users would be
inclined to use it. A user could set the minimum
stability rating that he wanted for all packages or on
a per package basis. 
After the user does an emerge update, the system would
check if an installed package is above the users
minimum. If not, the system informs the user of the
drop and asks if he wants the package to be removed or
not.

Only the maintainer would be able to actually modify
the package itself. Of course, big status changes
would happen soon after a maintainer modifies a
package.

Questions to think about:
1) Should modifications reset the status of a package
to 50?
2) Should a plus/minus vote forward propogate to the
packages that depend on it? Eg. if kdelibs gets a -1
vote, should amarok get a -1 vote too?
3) Should the votes backpropagate instead?

Cheers,
Ben

 "he who writes the code gets to choose his license, and nobody else gets to complain" - Linus Torvale
In my honest option, it should read - "he who writes the code gets to choose his license, and everybody else complains."
 



-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: KDE version

[Uwe Thiem]

On 29 March 2006 18:12, Schleimer, Ben wrote:
> > Isn't the solution to have  3  levels: 'testing',
> > 'probation' & 'stable' ?
> > 'Testing' would be literally that, asking for
> > feedback from users;
> > 'probation' wb already tested for a defined period
> > -- say  30 days  --
>
> How about a crazier idea:
>
> Each package has a stability rating from 0-99 per
> architecture.
> 0 means totally untested/unstable and 99 means rock
> solid/no bugs. (0-33~unstable, 34-66~testing,
> 67-99~stable)
> Each new package starts at 50. Whenever a user uses
> the package, he can then vote on it by giving +1 or -1
> (on the website or through portage). 

Indeed, a crazy idea. Technical issues like stability, which technology to 
use, how to implement a certain functionality, whether a bug is fixed,... can 
not be subject to voting. Period. Someone actually has to look into the 
matter and decide on technical merits. 

Otherwise we should start a similar voting system on weather. 0 means abosulte 
crap weather, 99 means weather to sire heroes. 0-33: cold, windy, rainy. 
34-66: so lala. 65-99: good weather. Each day start with 50 points at 00:00 
sharp. Then the voting kicks in and we can all witness how the sun brightens 
over time. Except if you live in Namibia with all those farmers voting for 
rain. ;-)

Uwe


-- 
Why do consumers keep buying products they will live to curse?
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: KDE version

[b.n.]

>>How about a crazier idea:
>>
>>Each package has a stability rating from 0-99 per
>>architecture.
>>0 means totally untested/unstable and 99 means rock
>>solid/no bugs. (0-33~unstable, 34-66~testing,
>>67-99~stable)
>>Each new package starts at 50. Whenever a user uses
>>the package, he can then vote on it by giving +1 or -1
>>(on the website or through portage). 
> 
> Indeed, a crazy idea. Technical issues like stability, which technology to 
> use, how to implement a certain functionality, whether a bug is fixed,... can 
> not be subject to voting. Period. Someone actually has to look into the 
> matter and decide on technical merits. 

Anyway, the idea of a finer granularity for stability branches shouldn't 
be throwed away. The score could be given by developers, following some 
rules (bugs filed vs. time, etc.)

Without using a 0-99 range (it seems too much granular imho), a 0-10 
range could be nice (0-not working / 10-production level rock solid).

Is there already some example of such usage?

m.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list