KDE 3.1: delayed
lucy-ples at mtu-net.ru
Fri Dec 6 16:38:07 GMT 2002
On Friday 06 December 2002 7:18 pm, Navindra Umanee wrote:
| Simon Hausmann <hausmann at kde.org> 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
| For a release as big as 3.1, I'd say binary packages were very
SVG Icons * BlueSphere Icons 0.3.0 released
My KDE page
More information about the kde-core-devel