On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 18:58, Ahmad Samir <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24 March 2011 00:48, Olivier Blin <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ahmad Samir <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> We shouldn't under any circumstances add kde3 in the repos, fork or not. >>> >>> Users see a package in the repos and they expect it to be maintained, >>> this will not be the case, we can't support KDE4 and KDE3 at the same >>> time. Past experience tells us this is a major hassle/pain, and we >>> shouldn't have to go back to that murky situation. >> >> That's not KDE3, it's a fork with new maintainers. >> > > The point still stands, will Trinity be another DE? or will we have to > add conflicts in Trinity <-> KDE4 specs?
Trinity will be another DE > > If the latter, then I don't fancy adding the conflicts in each of the > various kde4 specs (having just removed them a few months ago, and > that took quite a lot of work), just to have another DE. As I reiterate, Trinity does not interfere with KDE4 in any way, if you keep /opt/kde3 > >>> Also there shouldn't be any qt3 dependant packages in the repos; the >>> only and sole reason qt3 is in the Mageia repos is that stewbintn said >>> he needs it for some LSB stuff, but nothing is built with qt3-devel as >>> BR AFAIK and nothing should be. >> >> It should be ok to add back qt3-devel temporarily, and remove it again >> once Trinity gets ported to Qt4. >> >> -- >> Olivier Blin - blino >> > > > > -- > Ahmad Samir > -- later, Robert Xu
