Repositaries (again) - supporting separate versions

[kjpetrie]

So we know they were trying to port it three years ago. If it is legacy software then a legacy installation in VirtualBox (PUEL version - as USB access would be needed) would be the obvious answer.

[menotu]

last updates on site appear to be 2007

specifically the "distribution setting" retained as was (mine seems to be pclinuxos/2007)?

I believe you'll find PCLinuxOS 2009.x has always pointed to an 2007 directory on the repo sites.

A new 2010 directory has been added (but is not yet in use) in anticipation of being populated by the new KDE4 2010 packages.

You can always point Synaptic to:

http://kde3.pclosusers.com/pclosfiles/  

which YouCanToo kindly set up for people wanting to use/stay with KDE3.5x

Have you thought of doing an iso "remaster" of your current setup so you have permanent access to it?

[k88king]

<<
Quote
last updates on site appear to be 2007

I believe you'll find PCLinuxOS 2009.x has always pointed to an 2007 directory on the repo sites.
>>
the 2007 comment was in relation to the posting about Kpilot (not about PCLOS)


<<
Have you thought of doing an iso "remaster" of your current setup so you have permanent access to it?
>>
Yes, but unfortunately all of our PCLOS 2009.x are now in a less than ideal state because we kept updating via Synaptic, hence my very original posting, of could the 2007/2009 repositaries not have been kept in a stable condition and the 2010 developement, alpha, beta, rc, and initial versions at least all done in a seperate repo.
Unfortunately now need to find shed load of time to back everything up on every machine, prey, re-install 2009.2 iso on at least one, very carefully point at YouCanToo's Austin Powers version of 3.5 and update everything and re-select all packages wanted/needed. Then can maybe remaster on that unit to use as install for the others.

[menotu]

hence my very original posting, of could the 2007/2009 repositaries not have been kept in a stable condition

I'm not sure I follow - how have they been "unstable" ?

[kjpetrie]

What you don't seem to realise is that the repository change has nothing to do with KDE4. It is just co-incidence that 2009 had KDE 3 and 2010 will have KDE 4.

The major change from 2009 to 2010 was the new toolchain which was introduced seamlessly in October and improved KDE4's stability to the point that it became the main pclos desktop. Texstar dropped a number of very strong hints that people should migrate to it or stop upgrading their systems. All this was part of normal development in the 2007 repo.

However, around the end of November, the repo had moved too far away from the ISO for new installs to be upgraded and Texstar started working on a new ISO. Sometime around the New Year he decided that it wasn't worth the trouble continuing development in the 2007 repo and started a new 2010 repo and announced everyone would have to re-install to stay current.

This is not part of a grand plan. Until January no one knew there was going to be a break. Doubtless if Texstar had known in October what he knows now he might have frozen the repo before working on a KDE 4 release and started afresh then, but he didn't know.

[k88king]

<<
I'm not sure I follow - how have they been "unstable" ?
>>
may not be the right words to use, but there were a couple of things I think went awry, the main that has given us much grief I suppose is related to if you see this sort of message
<<<<
Xlib:  extension "Generic Event Extension" missing on display ":0.0".
>>>>
it stopped a lot of scripts we had that used XDialog from running satisfactorily.
We had to change the scripts to run just from console with no nice UI and is still thoroughly confusing some users.

In the course of trying to fix above, there were some postings about updating (I think it was) xcb which we did, but lost vlc as a result of that. Which as far as I understand it we can not get vlc back without wiping and starting over pointing at YouCanToo's repo (if we are also wanting to stick with KDE3.5 (for now) which we do).

<<
What you don't seem to realise is that the repository change has nothing to do with KDE4. It is just co-incidence that 2009 had KDE 3 and 2010 will have KDE 4.
>>
Actually I do realise, I am just trying to suggest that if you want serious users (as well) they will/should want a distro that has very stable platform and that any new development and fundamentally new "version" should be done in a seperate repo. When that other repo has proven to be rock solid and users are ready to make the move they can, but they should not end up with slightly compromised systems (I do not mean in security sense I mean in the functionality they previously enjoyed). i.e. we are living with issues and are being told the solution is to wait for 2010 (which if it is KDE4 may not be an option for us, yet, which is where the KDE4 bits of discussion have been coming in.)

<<
and announced everyone would have to re-install to stay current
>>
a tangent, some means or mechanism built into the distribution that provides such information to end users (who do not frequent the forums) would be nice ?


<<
This is not part of a grand plan. Until January no one knew there was going to be a break. Doubtless if Texstar had known in October what he knows now he might have frozen the repo before working on a KDE 4 release and started afresh then, but he didn't know.
>>
Yes, which is why I'm trying to suggest (yes I know with hindsight) but wouldn't it be a good idea in future (I know with the very limited resources) to keep one repo absolutely stable and give any development a reasonable beta test via another repo?