Yes, it was deliberately suggested to be removed during the meeting (after 16:56 in the transcript). I think this depends a lot on Dirk and Raymond whether they want this repo to be seen as belonging together with the other two.
I think keeping it consistent is important, both for users and for making it easier to maintain. If you think Unstable doesn't belong under the heading "Distribution", then I would think changing the name of the folder as Martin suggested would be preferable to making a single special case that is inconsistent. In terms of its contents and purpose I think Unstable is basically the same as Factory and Stable. I think having it in the same sub-directory as Stable and Factory makes 2 things clear to users that I think would not be clear otherwise. First, it makes it clear that Unstable is not just a generic place to put unstable packages, Unstable is specifically for an unstable set of core KDE packages. Second, putting them all together makes it more clear that you would only want to have Factory, Stable, or Unstable enabled at any one time. I think putting Unstable in a different place than Factory and Stable would make it seem to users that it is somehow fundamentally different, when really it just contains a different version of the same basic packages (plus or minus some package changes between KDE versions, but Factory has the same issue). There is also the issue that at certain points Unstable moves to Factory (usually around the first RC release, if I recall correctly), so putting them together seems logical to me. So to summarize, I think that if there is a problem with the naming, I think it is better to fix the naming rather than break the folder structure. On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Lubos Lunak <l.lunak@suse.cz> wrote:
On Tuesday 27 of April 2010, todd rme wrote:
What is happening with the KDE 3 repos? The backports directory is only going to allow KDE 4 applications, right? I think that needs to be made clear either way.
KDE:KDE3 stays in its current unsupported way. The other KDE3-based repos can go (unless, of course, somebody would take care of them, but that means in practice that they can go).
What about backports? Is it only going to contain KDE 4 application or is it going to continue to have KDE 3 applications as well? If there are going to continue to be KDE 3 applications for which there is no KDE 4 alternative, I would prefer there to be a separate KDE 3 repo, such as KDE:Legacy, for such applications, rather than having backports containing a mix of KDE 3 and KDE 4 applications like it does now.
This is because, once again, I never really liked the inconsistent naming between the Desktop and Community/Playground sub-directories. Further, how we have Community and Playground now with one big directory containing 3 versions of each directory for each version of openSUSE leads to a huge directory and really long file names. Backports is excluded from this, of course.
I think you are confusing the repository itself (what it contains) and build repositories (what it is built against).
Perhaps I am. Whatever the reason, currently, for instance, the Community repository has these directories in it: Community/openSUSE_11.0/ Community/openSUSE_11.0_KDE4_Factory_Desktop/ Community/openSUSE_11.0_KDE4_UNSTABLE_Desktop/ Community/openSUSE_11.1/ Community/openSUSE_11.1_KDE4_Factory_Desktop/ Community/openSUSE_11.1_KDE4_UNSTABLE_Desktop/ Community/openSUSE_11.2/ Community/openSUSE_11.2_KDE4_Factory_Desktop/ Community/openSUSE_11.2_KDE4_UNSTABLE_Desktop/ Community/openSUSE_Factory/ Community/openSUSE_Factory_KDE4_UNSTABLE_Desktop/ Before long there will also be 11.3 versions, adding another 3 folders. I think this is needlessly complicated and inconsistent with how the core KDE repositories are laid out (what is called Distribution under the proposal we have). I am suggesting it be like this: Community/Stable/openSUSE_11.0/ Community/Stable/openSUSE_11.1/ Community/Stable/openSUSE_11.2/ Community/Stable/openSUSE_Factory/ Community/Factory/openSUSE_11.0/ Community/Factory/openSUSE_11.1/ Community/Factory/openSUSE_11.2/ Community/Unstable/openSUSE_11.0/ Community/Unstable/openSUSE_11.1/ Community/Unstable/openSUSE_11.2/ Community/Unstable/openSUSE_Factory/ I know that Stable/, Factory/, and Unstable/ will all have the same packages (well, Stable might not because some community packages might not be compatible with the stable KDE from older openSUSE versions). But I think, even if all of the packages are the same (just built against different target) I still think it would be better to organize it this way to maintain consistency and to avoid a needlessly long and complicated folder with needlessly long and complicated names. -Todd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org