[Bug 3318] 5.04 updates

I think that the fact that Riddell has managed to "backport" (in a
slightly different sense of the word) KDE 3.4.1 to hoary etc etc means
that KDE shouldnt be that much of a problem, espescially for Dapper->
breezy where we wont have any major changes.

It's not that hard to do, but i agree... toolchain shouldnt be
touched... and if it's requied to be touched to upgrade something...
then it shouldnt be backported

Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:56:08AM -0500, John Dong wrote:
> 
>>To the Developers listening in (or being spammed to listen in ;-) ):
>>
>>What do you feel about \sh's suggestion of "upgrading gnome or kde"?
>>
>>Surely that'll take kdelibs or libgnome*, qt/gtk updates and such upward
>>dependencies.
> 
> 
> I think it becomes a question of what we want backports to be.  Currently,
> my notion is that it is intended to be useful groups of updated packages for
> stable releases which meet the needs of many users.
> 
> Of course, different users have different needs, and we should think
> carefully about what we choose to backport.  I would say that in general,
> backporting toolchain components should be avoided because of the complexity
> and instability that can be introduced.  Libraries sometimes make sense to
> backport, but this should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
> 
> KDE and GNOME are large, complex, interdependent sets of software packages
> which could be tricky to backport.  This cost should be weighed against the
> alternative of simply upgrading to the next release.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 256 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-backports/attachments/20051101/c2661a9a/signature.pgp