diff options
| author | Nicolas Vigier <boklm@mageia.org> | 2013-04-14 13:46:12 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Nicolas Vigier <boklm@mageia.org> | 2013-04-14 13:46:12 +0000 |
| commit | 1be510f9529cb082f802408b472a77d074b394c0 (patch) | |
| tree | b175f9d5fcb107576dabc768e7bd04d4a3e491a0 /zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120527/3ce93a66/attachment.html | |
| parent | fa5098cf210b23ab4f419913e28af7b1b07dafb2 (diff) | |
| download | archives-master.tar archives-master.tar.gz archives-master.tar.bz2 archives-master.tar.xz archives-master.zip | |
Diffstat (limited to 'zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120527/3ce93a66/attachment.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120527/3ce93a66/attachment.html | 22 |
1 files changed, 22 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120527/3ce93a66/attachment.html b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120527/3ce93a66/attachment.html new file mode 100644 index 000000000..55a80eb8c --- /dev/null +++ b/zarb-ml/mageia-dev/attachments/20120527/3ce93a66/attachment.html @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +<p>Le 27 mai 2012 04:33, "Franklin Weng" <<a href="mailto:franklin@goodhorse.idv.tw">franklin@goodhorse.idv.tw</a>> a écrit :<br> +[...]</p> +<p>> Now my question is that, will the KDE update policy in<br> +> backports be still the same as before?<br> +><br> +> I remember that when discussing if Mageia 1 would have KDE 4.7 in<br> +> backports, the answer was no because that kdepim was too unstable.</p> +<p>It was part of the problem & used to show that it was not that easy to do it.</p> +<p>[...]</p> +<p>> For Mageia 2, again I'd like to ask, if we will have KDE 4.9 in<br> +> backports after it releases in August?<br> +><br> +> (Yes, I know that I can upgrade my KDE using cauldron. But no, I<br> +> don't consider to upgrade my box with cauldron... it is far too<br> +> unstable than any version of kdepim.)</p> +<p>So here we've got some problems:<br> +- Backports are not functional.<br> +- Kde is still too big for a backport especially regarding our current (draft) backport policy where it should be validated by our QA. Not to mention that we'll have to update/backport somes dependencies to allow this.<br> + +- I personally won't push it to backport.</p> +<p>Regards,<br> +</p> |