kde-quality Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4

[Adriaan de Groot]

On Friday 05 January 2007 18:31, marco marinuzzo wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> thanks for keeping hot the interest in this thread. :)

I that light, can we please keep the sarcastic sniping down to a minimum? This 
thread is off-topic for this list, but we can keep it civil nonetheless. The 
amount of irony in this thread so far makes it very difficult to spot the 
actual issues being discussed.

> My first Unix machine was a Vax, my first terminal a VT100, not an
> emulator, a real VT100.

Ooh. I've run out of physical vt100s, all I have left is a 520.

I'm returning to this thread because I still don't see what it's *about*, and 
Marco has dismissed my previous "pick a distro and be done with it".

> Obviously, a KDE OS ready application does not need to have qt inside.
> A KDE OS project with a long term binary compatibility needs to start
> with all the library already installed to avoid the problem that you
> correctly report.

So if I get this right, you want to create a distro. Fine, pick one to start 
with. Define exactly what the base system provides (oh LSB) and go with 
static libraries for the rest; pull in a sufficiently large base set of 
libraries to ensure that the number of static libraries will be small.

Why is this contentious? Why is this on this list at all?

> Apt-get?, why not a yum or up2date or yast or a solid rpm -Uvh
> (missing a dep that misses another one that misses two...)
> and if the repository is missing?
> and if you are behind a proxy?
> of course, easy open a terminal, digit echo "export
> http_proxy=http://someproxy.bau.bau" >> .bash_profile" then ".
> .bash_profile" then retry...very easy... then open
> /etc/apt/sources.lst etc etc.

What has this got to do with KDE? Are you complaining that configuring package 
installation is hard? [I mentioned PC-BSD earlier, have you read its 
description at http://pcbsd.org/index.php?p=learnhome ?] It's easy to come up 
with corner cases that are problematic.


> >one thing they universally like is the package management system
>
> You forgot a letter..."package management systemS".
> That letter is the difference from the success or not of Linux as a
> Desktop.

Why the S? Any given distro comes with *one* package manager, doesn't it?

> I'm not the only one to think so. Try the link that Kurt posted before:
> http://ianmurdock.com/?p=388

Which comes down to: if you're going to compile software (why are you doing 
that?) it may be difficult.


<snip more of the same where my questions remain "who's going to do the work? 
where is the coordination going to happen? what's the difference between this 
and any other linux or BSD distro? do we have any *concrete* use cases?">

-- 
KDE Quality Team  http://www.englishbreakfastnetwork.org/
GPG: FEA2 A3FE    http://people.fruitsalad.org/adridg/