[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: A proposal to deal with the current RedHat situation
From:       Mike Richardson <mike () quaking ! demon ! co ! uk>
Date:       2002-09-03 8:46:16
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 02 September 2002 12:01 am, Neil Stevens wrote:
> On Sunday September 01, 2002 05:07, Joseph Wenninger wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > On Sunday 01 September 2002 22:00, Neil Stevens wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > On Sunday September 01, 2002 07:59, Shawn Gordon wrote:
> > > > *Someone* just needs to decide what version of Qt, KDE, gcc, etc.,
> > > > make up this official version.
> > >
> > > The official version of KDE is source.
> > >
> > > Further, KDE is portable, so there cannot be one fixed compiler and
> > > dependent libraries that make up the official installation.
> >
> > Why should KDE's portability be a problem in that case ? You can specify
> > for each distribution or operating system a certain set of library
> > versions, compiler options, ....
> >
> > At least for the most common ones.
>
> That it would only be for the most common ones is exactly the problem.  For
> Shawn it's no big deal, since a proprietary software vendor has to narrow
> down his supported platforms for practical reasons.  For KDE, having
> previously been portable through shipping source, it's a huge step
> backwards.

I really can't understand what you are on about. The point is to have some 
sort of standard, automated procedure for building packages for a certain set 
of distributions. We are *NOT* saying "we will build KDE for distros X, Y, 
and Z, others can go hang". If we don't include distro D and someone says, 
KDE doesn't build on D, but patch P fixes the problem, then P gets applied 
just as usual. So whats the problem?

>
> KDE will sudddenly be telling the world that you can only be "official" if
> you use something that is one of the common OSes.  Instead of letting the
> public face be the portable autoconfed code, KDE will be trumpeting some
> OSes and neglecting others.

The public face of KDE is *NOT* portable autoconfed code. The public face is 
what the public sees when they run the binary packages that have been 
installed, unless you are asserting that you have to understand autoconf et. 
al. in order to run KDE. And, currently, there is a distinct possibility the 
the public face of KDE is about to become the RedHat-patched version - in 
which case the eMail client in that public face is Evolution.

BTW: For the sake of completeness (a) I work for theKompany and (b) the build 
system, Jane, was my idea (Shawn coughed up the readies though :)

Mike

-- 
mike@quaking.demon.co.uk
http://www.quaking.demon.co.uk
http://www.thekompany.com

 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]