I think that the fact that Riddell has managed to "backport" (in a slightly different sense of the word) KDE 3.4.1 to hoary etc etc means that KDE shouldnt be that much of a problem, espescially for Dapper-> breezy where we wont have any major changes.
It's not that hard to do, but i agree... toolchain shouldnt be touched... and if it's requied to be touched to upgrade something... then it shouldnt be backported Matt Zimmerman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:56:08AM -0500, John Dong wrote: > >>To the Developers listening in (or being spammed to listen in ;-) ): >> >>What do you feel about \sh's suggestion of "upgrading gnome or kde"? >> >>Surely that'll take kdelibs or libgnome*, qt/gtk updates and such upward >>dependencies. > > > I think it becomes a question of what we want backports to be. Currently, > my notion is that it is intended to be useful groups of updated packages for > stable releases which meet the needs of many users. > > Of course, different users have different needs, and we should think > carefully about what we choose to backport. I would say that in general, > backporting toolchain components should be avoided because of the complexity > and instability that can be introduced. Libraries sometimes make sense to > backport, but this should be considered on a case-by-case basis. > > KDE and GNOME are large, complex, interdependent sets of software packages > which could be tricky to backport. This cost should be weighed against the > alternative of simply upgrading to the next release. >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- ubuntu-backports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-backports
