Amarok 2 on F9

[Matthew Woehlke]

Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> 2008/12/19 Matthew Woehlke <mw_triad at users.sourceforge.net>:
>> Joshua C. wrote:
>>> I recompiled amarok-2.0.2.fc10 for f9 just to try it. Before this i
>>> had to recompile mysql-embedded for f9 (source is in koji for f10)
>>> because in f9 there is no mysql-embedded. I also needed to recompile
>>> libmtp-0.3.4 for f9. So far it is working fine. Since the kde versions
>>> in f10 and  f9 are identical can the maintainer officially publich it
>>> for f9?
>> Why? If we were three months from a release, and talking about the current
>> release (i.e. f10), and there was a compelling reason to upgrade (e.g. I
>> really hope KDE 4.2 can get pushed to f10 :-) ), that would be one thing. In
>> this case, users that want amarok2 can, and IMO should, use f10. I don't see
>> the reason to push a major update to a non-current release.
> 
> Fedora 9 is a current release.

Sorry, s/current/latest/.

>> (Put another way, would you support pushing OOo3 to f9?)
> 
> If the OOo maintainer did not want to support security fixes for two
> branches of OOo, then by all means.

Who said anything about not supporting security fixes?

> This is the definition of a meritocracy.

I don't follow? This is about pushing a .0 package representing a major 
upgrade (among other things, a change of toolkit!) in the middle of a 
stable release.

To quote Rex Dieter, "I'd tend to be against that. A major upgrade like 
that in the middle of a release cycle is unwise." All I was saying is 
that I agree with this.

-- 
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
-- 
I was recently amused by issuing 'rm -rf $KDEDIR'... from Konsole, while 
in a KDE session. And nothing bad happened whatsoever. Try THAT on 
Windows :-D.