On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:09:12 -0700 (MST), Dmitry Makovey wrote: > Now my question is: how safe is it to do a workaround, and create local > version of kde-base/kdelibs-4.2.0-r1 ebuild (say, -r2) which removes > the block and just stick with 3.5.9 on 3.5 side ? I really don't feel > like unmasking 3.5.10 builds and building them too.
The devs put that block on for a reason. You are free to remove it safe in the knowledge that you can claim sole responsibility for all the broken pieces. This seems a lot more risky than running a well-tested ~arch package. > another confusing thing is: > !<=kde-base/kdebase-3.5.9-r4 > !<=kde-base/kdebase-startkde-3.5.10 > which I read as "you're fine using kde-3.5.9 as long as you don't use > startkde". kind of weird. Not at all. All versions of startkde older than 3.5.10-r1 cause a problem with KDE4. Using a more recent version or no version at all. Some people may have their own custom KDE startup scripts. -- Neil Bothwick Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
