On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 4:34 PM, todd rme <toddrme2178@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> wrote:
On 2012/07/22 16:08 (GMT+0200) Sven Burmeister composed:
todd rme wrote:
I wouldn't remove openSUSE 11.4 support right now. People running 11.4, might still want to install KDE 4.9 :-)
Sven Burmeister said not to (due to the impending eol), that is why I am asking.
so what's the point of starting to support something which will be dropped in the middle?
Evergreen.
Are we planning on supporting evergreen in the KR repos? I would think that would be a big burden on the project maintainers and on OBS. It isn't just build targets, the entire KR46 repo would need to be kept active.
Are people who are sticking with a 3-year old release really going to want a bleeding-edge KDE release? Especially since it will pull in new libraries and updated versions of old libraries, potentially destabilizing the system.
This is a more general issue than KR 49, so I am splitting this into a different thread. The issue is how long we will support openSUSE and evergreen releases in different repositories. There are several issues: 1. The load on obs. 2. The maintenance load 3. Whether there is actually demand for this 1 and 2 become more serious as time goes on, because successive KDE releases add new library dependencies, and updated library version dependencies, which increases the load on OBS, makes maintenance more difficult, and potentially decreases the stability of the distribution. So my personal feelings on this are as follows: KDE:Extra and KDE:UpdatedApps should probably be kept through the evergreen period, but certainly at least for the lifetime of each release. However, packages failing for old releases should be expected and minimal, if any, effort should go into keeping packages building for evergreen (although obviously unnecessary changes that break old releases should be avoided). KDE:Unstable repos should only be kept until the next release is out plus maybe 2 or 3 months. Anyone running bleeding-edge software would be unlikely to be using old releases. I would sort of be inclined to 3 months, but 2 months would be more closely matched to the eol policy. KR repos should be kept for the lifetime of older releases, but new KR repos going stable within a few months of a release's eol should not support the old release. The rest should only be kept for the lifetime of the release, not for evergreen. I do have some question of KDE:Distro:Factory. It is not explicitly a stable repo, but on the other hand as I understand it it is widely-used. So in terms of its intent, I would place it with the Unstable repos, but in terms of its practical use I might keep it for the lifetime of a release. Does anyone have any thoughts, alternatives, or strong objections to any of this? -Todd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kde+owner@opensuse.org