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

List:       kde-user
Subject:    Re: Doco on how to install KDE 2.0 : for the rest of us dummies?
From:       "David E. Fox" <dfox () belvdere ! vip ! best ! com>
Date:       2000-09-09 15:56:18
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 06 Sep 2000, paul.c.leopardi@ac.com wrote:

> 4. There are enough people testing KDE 1.90 to KDE 1.93 to make these
> worthwhile Beta tests, which means that KDE 1.90 to KDE 1.92 tested most of
> the software.

Probably, I'd tend to agree mostly with these last two points. KDE2 is 
gettting better, and while there still are some problems, it's a pretty 
stable desktop right now.

> 7. In particular any installation documentation, methods or scripts are
> usually included with late Betas.

Yes, and the install instructions are there in the sources, and the overall 
process hasn't really changed any. If you are compiling from sources, I don't 
see how the installation instructions might be classified as 'out of date'. 
The binaries might be a different matter as people install new distributions 
and as such they might encounter new dependencies that aren't addressed 
completely by the installation instructions. Personally, I've only done this 
by compiling sources: I had dependency issues very early on in this process 
(pre-kde 1.0) and found that compiling was better.

> Given these assumptions, I came to the conclusion that the installation
> documentation, methods and scripts that will come with KDE 2.0 are missing.

They may be incorrect or incomplete addressing certain issues (as I 
described), but they are far from 'missing'.

> 1. The developers forgot about installation, or

Unlikely. The install procedure is widely known and hasn't changed in over a 
year. Some details have changed, such as the version of Qt, or the versions 
of the kde packages, of course.

> 2. KDE 2.0 will be released with untested installation documentation,
> methods and scripts, or

The scripts are the same as KDE1 - little if anything has changed except for 
versions.

> 3. The difference between installing from CD or from FTP is so great that
> no meaningful test is possible, or

That process is identical. In kde, there's no difference between a file on an 
FTP host vs. a local file - you operate it essentially the same way. If you 
install from RPM, you can just as easily do an install from an FTP site as a 
local disk - the only difference is having to add the FTP url prefix at the 
beginning in the first situation. Of course, installing from FTP will take 
longer, since you have to wait for the thing to download :).

Some of this may be better once the distributions get the new KDE and 
incorporate it.

> 5. Each distribution will need to do its own testing of the installation
> documentation, methods and scripts.

Agreed, since there may be distribution-specific issues. But that's important 
for those people who are going to wait for their distribution of choice gets 
updated with the new KDE, and do an upgrade in toto from there. 



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David E. Fox                                    Thanks for letting me
dfox@belvdere.vip.best.com                      change magnetic patterns
David.Fox@icp.siemens.com                       on your hard disk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Send posts to:  kde-user@lists.netcentral.net
 Send all commands to:  kde-user-request@lists.netcentral.net
  Put your command in the SUBJECT of the message:
   "subscribe", "unsubscribe", "set digest on", or "set digest off"

All kde mailing lists are archived at http://lists.kde.org
**********************************************************************
This list is from your pals at NetCentral <http://www.netcentral.com/>

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