Version mismatch when building trunk

Gary Greene greeneg at
Thu Oct 15 20:27:52 BST 2009

On 10/15/09 12:07 PM, "Kevin Krammer" <kevin.krammer at> wrote:
> On Thursday, 2009-10-15, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> You apparently missed the (very long) thread where it was stated that
>> there would be no 'latest' branch. IOW everyone building their own qt
>> will always have to do a manual checkout every time we switch
>> requirements to a new branch.
> Apparently I did. Been on vacation for a couple of weeks.
>> This is needed to keep a clean history, but is inconvenient for everyone
>> that doesn't care about that.
> A clean history on development branches is hardly an excuse for breaking
> everybody's workflow who is developing downstream.
> It has been possible to provide an up-to-date base for development with SVN,
> even CVS, so it is either possible with even more advanced tools or they are
> not as advances as everybody claims they are.
> If it is no longer possible to track upstream development, we should have the
> policy that KDE's platform level needs to be buildable against the latest
> upstream release.
>> Well, I'm not sure what wasn't coordinated. It was announced here
>> ( more than
>> two weeks ago that this would be happening.
> Doesn't seem to be enough time to update the developer documentation, e.g. on
> TechBase.
> Obviously if somebody had a checkout/clone of a specifc version, they would be
> aware that they needed to change to a different version at some point.
> However, people who are not using a specific version but rather the branch
> specifically recommended for KDE development expect that branch to be suitably
> up-to-date.
>> It was; qt-kde 4.6-stable-patched has been around for some time. You are
>> being surprised because there is no more 'latest' branch; you (and
>> everyone else building Qt... not limited to kde-qt, even) must now
>> manually change branches.
> I really don't care about 'latest' branches. I really don't mind waiting for
> an upstream to reach release-candidate or release before basing my work on it.
> I care about not having to hunt down arbitrary versions of build dependencies.
> If the devel package of a reasonable recent distribution such as
> Debian/unstable is sufficient, great.
> If an easily updatable repository like kdesupport is sufficient, why not.
> If requires changing between different development branches all the time, make
> it optional until one of the two other options become available.
> Cheers,
> Kevin

I very much agree with this view, as I am writing a continuous build system
and would prefer not to have to monkey with the description files for a
dependency to the build all that often as it's supposed to be "setup once,
continually build after that" with as little *manual* intervention as

Gary L. Greene, Jr.
Developer and Project Lead for the AltimatOS open source project
Volunteer Developer for the KDE open source project
See and for more information

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list