From kde-core-devel Fri Dec 06 16:38:07 2002 From: Vadim Plessky Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 16:38:07 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: KDE 3.1: delayed X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=103919317519288 On Friday 06 December 2002 7:18 pm, Navindra Umanee wrote: | Simon Hausmann wrote: | > I share that opinion. The users have been waiting for 3.1 very long | > now. A source release is IMHO better than none at all, especially | > when it contains security fixes. | | Users hate pure source releases as far as I know. I often have people | telling me stuff like they don't get the RC because there were no RPMs | for XXX. It takes an awful lot of time to compile everything. Well, it's indeed quite difficult to get & compile 5 different RC (RC1-RC5), especially if you have other tasks to do, either at home or at work. That's why, for example, I still run KDE3.1-beta2 BUT: 3.1 *RELEASE* is different story. I can sacrificy part of my time in favour of compile (supposing that KDE 3.1-final _compiles_, with know list of required dependencies), and make binary RPMs available for other people. If someone can send me LM-9.0 CDs - than I can build KDE 3.1 for Mandrake 9.0 as well. (I run LM 8.2 due to the fact that I don't have bandwidth to download 2 ISO CDs) What do we have left behind this? I guess Debian can make packaging, too - as it's not a company and there is no *schedule* which they need to follow. SuSE: may be, Waldo can build packages? I don't know who is the *regular packager* for KDE at SuSE, but as KDE packages (usually) available for SuSE, I doubt new release would be somewaht incompatible with SuSE standards for packaging. | | For a release as big as 3.1, I'd say binary packages were very | important. Agree 100%. | | -N. -- Vadim Plessky SVG Icons * BlueSphere Icons 0.3.0 released http://svgicons.sourceforge.net My KDE page http://kde2.newmail.ru (English) KDE mini-Themes http://kde2.newmail.ru/themes/