Mailing List Archive

m h wrote:
> Subject says it all.
>
> This isn't meant as flamebait. I'm running stable on my laptop and
> unstable on my desktop. It seems like most KDE release get better
> over time, so I'm just wondering what the process is with KDE?
>

Whether it is meant to be flamebait or not is irrelevant. This list
isn't for whining about (the lack of) stable keywords for any particular
ebuild or set of ebuilds.

-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:05, m h wrote:
> This isn't meant as flamebait.  I'm running stable on my laptop and
> unstable on my desktop.  It seems like most KDE release get better
> over time, so I'm just wondering what the process is with KDE?
KDE 3.5.0 was quite broken -and required more patches than usual to get to an
usable state-, KDE 3.5.1 was a bit better but stills some patches were
needed, KDE 3.5.2 is in portage since less than a month, and already had a
few patches with revbumps to few memleaks and crashes, a new kdelibs revbump
is also planned, and umbrello 3.5.2 is regressed compared to 3.5.1 (that
still, vanilla, wasn't usable for activity diagrams at all).

That said, I doubt we can have anything stable in less that another month or
even two.

--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

On 4/3/06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <flameeyes@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 April 2006 01:05, m h wrote:
> > This isn't meant as flamebait. I'm running stable on my laptop and
> > unstable on my desktop. It seems like most KDE release get better
> > over time, so I'm just wondering what the process is with KDE?
> KDE 3.5.0 was quite broken -and required more patches than usual to get to an
> usable state-, KDE 3.5.1 was a bit better but stills some patches were
> needed, KDE 3.5.2 is in portage since less than a month, and already had a
> few patches with revbumps to few memleaks and crashes, a new kdelibs revbump
> is also planned, and umbrello 3.5.2 is regressed compared to 3.5.1 (that
> still, vanilla, wasn't usable for activity diagrams at all).
>
> That said, I doubt we can have anything stable in less that another month or
> even two.
>

Diego -

Thanks for the response.

Steve-

Sorry to abuse the list. Feel free to point me to the correct place
to post this. I noticed it in the forums a few times without any
answer.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Stephen P. Becker wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 07:11:12PM EDT]
> Whether it is meant to be flamebait or not is irrelevant. This list
> isn't for whining about (the lack of) stable keywords for any
> particular ebuild or set of ebuilds.

Making this kind of statement without pointing the poster to the
appropriate place (and I'm curious too) surely isn't helping anybody.
Where do you suggest procedural questions be asked?

Aron
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

This is Gentoo. We have a reputation of good community support to maintain
here. You're not helping that reputation by being mean to people who ask
legitimate questions. The issue that the question may have been sent to the
wrong list is irrelevant. RTFM is never the right answer to a question.

Kari Hazzard

On Monday 03 April 2006 11:11 pm, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Whether it is meant to be flamebait or not is irrelevant. This list
> isn't for whining about (the lack of) stable keywords for any particular
> ebuild or set of ebuilds.
>
> -Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Kari Hazzard wrote:
> This is Gentoo. We have a reputation of good community support to maintain
> here. You're not helping that reputation by being mean to people who ask
> legitimate questions. The issue that the question may have been sent to the
> wrong list is irrelevant. RTFM is never the right answer to a question.

I fail to see how pointing out a post was offtopic is mean. Rather, it
will save that individual (and hopefully others) from making the same
mistake in the future.

Also, RTFM is absolutely the right answer more often than not.
Otherwise, what is the point of having TFM in the first place? The
amusement of those who spent a lot of time and effort writing it?

-Steve
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Kari Hazzard wrote: [Mon Apr 03 2006, 09:16:08PM CDT]
> This is Gentoo. We have a reputation of good community support to maintain
> here. You're not helping that reputation by being mean to people who ask
> legitimate questions. The issue that the question may have been sent to the
> wrong list is irrelevant. RTFM is never the right answer to a question.

Although I agree with the overall spirit of the comment, I disagree that
RTFM is never the right answer. It helps if somebody points out _which_
fine manual to read, but ":help hardcopy" is a much better answer to
"How do I print from within vim?" than actual detailed instructions
would be.

-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> I fail to see how pointing out a post was offtopic is mean. Rather, it
> will save that individual (and hopefully others) from making the same
> mistake in the future.
>
> Also, RTFM is absolutely the right answer more often than not.
> Otherwise, what is the point of having TFM in the first place? The
> amusement of those who spent a lot of time and effort writing it?

RTFM shouldn't be an answer in and of itself. Pointing out which FM would help.
Particular sections to note would be great help too considering many FM are
really FLarge.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

--- lnxg33k <lnxg33k@gmail.com> wrote:

> RTFM shouldn't be an answer in and of itself.
> Pointing out which FM would help.
> Particular sections to note would be great help too
> considering many FM are
> really FLarge.

Good response. Saying RTFM doesn't require any
know-how, and it's actually more of a one-up-manship.

In fact instead of having a ml, when someone tries to
join the ml just have it send a RTFM, RTFF, RTFW
email. Would save everyone alot of time and be really
helpful. :p

Yeah, the arrogance of it really annoys me.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tuesday 04 April 2006 2:28 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> I fail to see how pointing out a post was offtopic is mean. Rather, it
> will save that individual (and hopefully others) from making the same
> mistake in the future.

Then refer the poster to the correct place to send such inquiries. That is the
logical way to deal with OT messages. You failed to do this, and instead
offered a derrogatory message contributing absolutely nothing positive.

>
> Also, RTFM is absolutely the right answer more often than not.
> Otherwise, what is the point of having TFM in the first place? The
> amusement of those who spent a lot of time and effort writing it?
>
> -Steve

TFM exists to be read, yes, but not everyone reads TFM. You are a developer.
That's great, I'm sure you can do a lot of things with Gentoo that I'd be
completely dumbfounded about, being myself not a developer.

If we're going to say that Gentoo is a valid and worthwhile operating system,
we need to support that idea by maintaining our image as a group of people,
both users and developers. The Gentoo philosophy of continual growth and
improvement doesn't just apply to software. It applies to everyone on this
list, how they conduct themselves, how they behave.

I suggest patching your question-answering skills in light of this bug. :)

Kari Hazzard
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

060404 Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> KDE 3.5.0 required more patches than usual to get to an usable state,
> KDE 3.5.1 was a bit better but still some patches were needed,
> KDE 3.5.2 is in portage since less than a month, and already
> had a few patches with revbumps to few memleaks and crashes,
> a new kdelibs revbump is also planned
> and umbrello 3.5.2 is regressed compared to 3.5.1 .

KDE is now modular: is it possible to upgrade some modules, but not others ?
Kdelibs would need to be stable, but must everything wait for stragglers ?
If I have Kdelibs 3.5.2 , can I still run eg Konsole 3.5.1 ?

I have been running a wide variety of KDE 3.5.1 pkgs without any problems
& before that ran KDE 3.5.0 successfully; I plan to get 3.5.2 soon.

--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Duncan wrote:
> The Gentoo-desktop list is lower volume and generally where I ask
> (developer level) questions about anything so related, KDE, GNOME, burning
> CD/DVDs, sometimes sound issues, etc. Again, that's a developer list not
> a general user list, but it's low enough volume and generally friendly
> enough to get you the answers you need if it's something (like this) a dev
> would need to answer.

Really it's both developer and user questions. It's just that the
uninteresting ones tend to get ignored for a while because they aren't
fun to answer for the 10th time or so. =)

Thanks,
Donnie

On Tuesday 04 April 2006 08:09, Philip Webb wrote:
> KDE is now modular: is it possible to upgrade some modules, but not others
> ? Kdelibs would need to be stable, but must everything wait for stragglers
> ? If I have Kdelibs 3.5.2 , can I still run eg Konsole 3.5.1 ?
As modular as it can be, it has to go stable in one piece.

--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

On 04/04/06, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò <flameeyes@gentoo.org> wrote:
> usable state-, KDE 3.5.1 was a bit better but stills some patches were
> needed, KDE 3.5.2 is in portage since less than a month, and already had a
> few patches with revbumps to few memleaks and crashes, a new kdelibs revbump
> is also planned, and umbrello 3.5.2 is regressed compared to 3.5.1 (that
> still, vanilla, wasn't usable for activity diagrams at all).

Surely the question isn't whether the upgrade is perfect, but whether
it's better than the current stable release?

'find /usr/portage/kde-base -name '*3.4.3*.patch' |wc -l' shows 15
patches, 3.5.1 has 11 patches, and 3.5.2 has 6 patches. (I realise
that isn't a perfect patch count...)

From the handbook: "The use of ~arch denotes an ebuild requires
testing. The use of package.mask denotes that the application or
library itself is deemed unstable."

As far as I can see the *ebuilds* for kde work fine. If the newer
versions of kde have the problems you describe, then they should be
package.masked.

I think at this point it does more harm than good to be lagging behind
the current upstream kde - last time I checked the kde bugzilla
wouldn't even accept bug reports for the kde currently marked stable
as it was too old, and if bugs can't be filed then it's clearly
"unsupported upstream" and time to upgrade.

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Monday 03 April 2006 19:11, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Whether it is meant to be flamebait or not is irrelevant. This list
> isn't for whining about (the lack of) stable keywords for any particular
> ebuild or set of ebuilds.

Probably missing part of the thread or something, but I think the OP was more
looking for information on the stablization process within the kde herd, and
there's probably no better place to ask shy of irc than on -dev (and not all
people have the luxury of getting on irc).

Relax, spb, it's all good :)

~mcummings

Michael Cummings wrote:
> Relax, spb, it's all good :)

spb != geoman :)

--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth

On Tuesday 04 April 2006 11:12, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> Surely the question isn't whether the upgrade is perfect, but whether
> it's better than the current stable release?
It is not.

> 'find /usr/portage/kde-base -name '*3.4.3*.patch' |wc -l' shows 15
> patches, 3.5.1 has 11 patches, and 3.5.2 has 6 patches. (I realise
> that isn't a perfect patch count...)
Some of the patches are not in files/ for 3.5.x series. Also, many of the
problems faced are more severe than 3.4.x series up to now.

> As far as I can see the *ebuilds* for kde work fine. If the newer
> versions of kde have the problems you describe, then they should be
> package.masked.
There's a big difference between theory and practice. We already get enough
request to mark 3.5 stable (hell we had request to mark it stable when there
were at least two systematical crashes for everyone), two weeks after 3.5.0
release IIRC, if we were to put it under package.mask, we really would be
submerged by bug reports and mails about that.

Anyway, ~arch is not technically broken as we patch that as soon as humanly
possible, so it's not a p.mask kind of problem (a part from umbrello, but
that's no news at all).

I can ensure you we'd like to mark 3.5 stable as much as you do, probably even
more as there are fixed things, but it's not possible for now.

--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
Gentoo/Alt lead, Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, AMD64, Sound, PAM, KDE

>> I think at this point it does more harm than good to be lagging behind
>> the
>> current upstream kde - last time I checked the kde bugzilla wouldn't
>> even
>> accept bug reports for the kde currently marked stable as it was too
>> old,
>> and if bugs can't be filed then it's clearly "unsupported upstream" and
>> time to upgrade.
>
> Wow! I run ~arch by choice and generally find its keywording suitable
> (IOW, packages move from masked to ~arch at a generally appropriate
> speed), but I didn't realize Gentoo KDE-stable was /that/ far behind!
> Point well made!

I think historically we were much more bleeding edge with our stable KDE
versions than at the moment, but if you've spent any significant time
playing with 3.5.0 or 3.5.1, I think you would agree that they are
terribly less stable than 3.4.3. But in a few weeks I think 3.5.2 will be
stable and it will all be behind us.

Caleb

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tuesday 04 April 2006 05:42, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Michael Cummings wrote:
> > Relax, spb, it's all good :)
>
> spb != geoman :)

BAH! People shouldn't be allowed to have overlapping initials or something....

/me puts moritorium on other mcummings and MPC's.

spb - sorry 'bout that :)

On Tuesday 04 April 2006 11:12, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
> Surely the question isn't whether the upgrade is perfect, but whether
> it's better than the current stable release?

Exactly.

> (I realise that isn't a perfect patch count...)

Exactly.

> I think at this point it does more harm than good to be lagging behind
> the current upstream kde - last time I checked the kde bugzilla
> wouldn't even accept bug reports for the kde currently marked stable
> as it was too old, and if bugs can't be filed then it's clearly
> "unsupported upstream" and time to upgrade.

KDE 3.5.0/1 had grave bugs, leaving users with lost addressbooks and such. KDE
3.5.2 is not even out of our 30 days testing period and I have still a few
patches enqueued to be applied. I can live with users complaining, but that
doesn't mean it's not going on ones nerve. Especially when developers fall
into the chorus, it's getting uneasy.

It's ready, when it's ready. Really.


Carsten

060404 Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 April 2006 08:09, Philip Webb wrote:
>> KDE is now modular: is it possible to upgrade some modules,
>> but not others ? Kdelibs would need to be stable,
>> but must everything wait for stragglers ?
>> If I have Kdelibs 3.5.2 , can I still run eg Konsole 3.5.1 ?
> As modular as it can be, it has to go stable in one piece.

Ok, you're the expert. Thanks for the prompt & polite response.

It's basically a question how far a user can trust the upstream devs
& the KDE project team is one of the most competent among desktop stuff.
I will continue to ride the cutting-edge, knowing there's a tiny possibility
that something may not be quite right, eg the R-click-menu glitch
mentioned in another thread on Gentoo-user today.

--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

On Tuesday 04 April 2006 04:37, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> Although I agree with the overall spirit of the comment, I disagree that
> RTFM is never the right answer. It helps if somebody points out _which_
> fine manual to read, but ":help hardcopy" is a much better answer to
> "How do I print from within vim?" than actual detailed instructions
> would be.

I wholeheartly agree, just that the help to help yourself is not what I
consider as RTFM. Of course you have to learn the relevant bits yourself, so
being kindly pointed to exactly those bits is perfectly fine.


Carsten

060404 Caleb Tennis wrote:
> historically we were much more bleeding edge with our stable KDE versions,
> but if you've spent any significant time playing with 3.5.0 or 3.5.1,
> you would agree that they are terribly less stable than 3.4.3.

Not here ! I've used both (successively) every day
& can't recall a single crash or noteworthy (indeed any) problem.
It's true that I don't use Kmail & similar exchange-type apps
& some comments suggest that is where the bulk of instability lies.

The fact that KDE itself is no longer accepting bugs for 3.4.3
really does suggest there's something wrong with Gentoo's current criteria.

--
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' University of Toronto
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Kari Hazzard wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 April 2006 2:28 am, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
>> I fail to see how pointing out a post was offtopic is mean. Rather, it
>> will save that individual (and hopefully others) from making the same
>> mistake in the future.
>
> Then refer the poster to the correct place to send such inquiries. That is the
> logical way to deal with OT messages. You failed to do this, and instead
> offered a derrogatory message contributing absolutely nothing positive.

I hate to break it to you, but there really is no such place for such
queries. We generally consider it rude when users whine about stable
keywording. Therefore, I don't feel bad about a short response.


>> Also, RTFM is absolutely the right answer more often than not.
>> Otherwise, what is the point of having TFM in the first place? The
>> amusement of those who spent a lot of time and effort writing it?
>>
>> -Steve
>
> TFM exists to be read, yes, but not everyone reads TFM. You are a developer.
> That's great, I'm sure you can do a lot of things with Gentoo that I'd be
> completely dumbfounded about, being myself not a developer.

Not really, I can only do what I do because I read stuff. Anybody else
can easily do the same.


> If we're going to say that Gentoo is a valid and worthwhile operating system,
> we need to support that idea by maintaining our image as a group of people,
> both users and developers. The Gentoo philosophy of continual growth and
> improvement doesn't just apply to software. It applies to everyone on this
> list, how they conduct themselves, how they behave.
>
> I suggest patching your question-answering skills in light of this bug. :)

I would like to point out that it was you who flamed me for apparently
saying RTFM, when in fact if you read my original email, I did nothing
of the sort. I merely pointed out what should have been clear to anyone
that signed up for this list, that it is not for whining about arch
keywording. Sounds like you had an agenda to bitch about and found my
email to be convenient. In other words, you have no point.

-Steve


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list