On Tuesday, 10. June 2008, Matthew Rosewarne wrote:
> While there are valid concerns with matters of missing features or
> obsolescence, I see the two greatest issues in this decision being
> maintainability and (wo)manpower. While there are certainly other reasons to
> release with 4.1, those are the two issues I see as being critical, since
> they ultimately decide the viability of having KDE in Debian.
> By maintainability, I'm primarily referring to the lack of upstream
> maintenance of the KDE 3 branch. For example, there are libraries used by
I dare to disagree ;) IMHO the KDE3 lack of maintainabilty and required
manpower is FUD ;) Lemme try to prove it:
When the debian release is out, 'all' you still get then for lenny is:
o security fixes
o fixes for data loss bugs
Where do you expect to see more of them:
o in the solid KDE 3.5.9
o in KDE 4.1.0 with much new code
The KDE3 svn branch sees roughly one bugfix per day. SuSE, Redhat Enterprise,
etc, will have to fix security/dataloss bugs for 3.5.9 for more year than lenny
will be maintained.
Where do you expect KDE SVN merges of security and dataloss fixes to be easier:
o feature frozen 3.5 BRANCH aka 3.5.9 svn -> 3.5.9 as in lenny
o from 4.5.* 4.4.* 4.3.* 4.2.* -> a (theoretical) 4.1 in lenny
So my obvious(?) conclusion: maintainability and manpower for 3.5.9 in
lenny is much lower than for a 4.1 in lenny. IMHO: Q.E.D
Of course all 'serious' distro will have to have 4.* pkgs. But the advantage
of not having 4.1 in lenny itself but in another repo is that you can
concentrate on 4.1+n as soon as it's released and 'forget' about 4.1. And
that's what the I-wants-KDE4-user-base wants to have: the latest 4.x.y.
To me vi is Zen. To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is
a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated.
You discover truth everytime you use it.
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]