On Thursday 29 of April 2010, todd rme wrote:
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).
That is the question. Unstable can be seen as Factory with the latest upstream snapshot, but it can be also seen as the latest upstream snapshot with some more packages added. If it's the sooner, Unstable should be kept with Stable and Factory, if it's the latter and it won't follow Factory closely, then IMO it should be kept separately. Dirk, Raymond: Which of those two should it be?
There is also the issue that at certain points Unstable moves to Factory (usually around the first RC release, if I recall correctly)
It doesn't, Factory is always the ultimate development repository, at most taking some changes from Unstable that are needed for newer KDE versions.
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.
KDE:Backports contains backports of latest KDE apps from openSUSE:Factory, and given that there are almost no KDE3 apps by now, this point is almost moot. As for a separate repository for such KDE3 apps, it's the same like with KDE:KDE3 - there's first somebody who'd take care of the repository needed, and we all know how it is with people who'd actually do some work with KDE3.
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_11.2/ Community/openSUSE_11.2_KDE4_Factory_Desktop/ Community/openSUSE_11.2_KDE4_UNSTABLE_Desktop/
A repository is where the sources for what will be built are. A build repository is for what the sources are built. So here is a repository called Community that contains various packages and they are built in the first case for plain 11.2, in the second case for 11.2 with KKFD added, etc. ...
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_11.2/
Which means you cannot have this, there is no third component. It also actually does not make sense, there is no stable, factory or unstable Community, there is just Community and it is build for just (each of) one build repository. -- Lubos Lunak openSUSE Boosters team, KDE developer l.lunak@suse.cz , l.lunak@kde.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org