{Disarmed} Re: {Disarmed} Re: Review: Amarok 2.x in Kubuntu 9.04 a problem

[Craig White]

On Sat, 2009-05-02 at 18:33 -0700, Dazed_75 wrote:

> I don't have a problem with the fact that the functionality is not yet
> complete.  I do have a problem with including it in a distribution
> where it replaces a version which did have the missing functionality.
> In fact, I care not for iPOD (never had one and never will).  The
> principal remains.  If the new release of the program does not contain
> support for an important feature of the prior release, it should not
> be included by default in a new distribution [of ubuntu].
> 
> It is good for users to know how to get the missing functionality.  
----
I don't track the discussions that the packages for Ubuntu/Kubuntu have
but I do track the discussions on Fedora/Red Hat and opinions such as
the above would surely have slowed KDE 4 development/releases
substantially.

KDE 4, being a complete re-write meant literally that, a complete
re-write. While the kdepim functionality was somewhat plugged by
kde3-libs implementation as a stopgap, there was little enthusiasm for
the extra work for Amarok until someone stepped in and temporarily
filled the gap. The primary KDE developers vowed not to simply port the
code over from kde3 to kde4 and concentrate their energies towards
rewriting everything using QT4 libraries. I suppose you would have to
define your tems of 'important feature of the prior release' because
given a wide ranging definition, Ubuntu would still be on KDE 3.5.x.

My opinion of those who do not participate in the packaging/development
mail lists of a distribution and then complain about the decisions tend
to wear me out.

If you are using KDE 4.2.x, you probably recognize how well things are
turning out (which also came with kdepim QT4 code). All things in time.

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.