Ok, since the end result IS packaging I thought I'd ask my question here...

I am aware that developers all use different distros in order to code for kde. upon release, packages are released as source files in either the bz2 or tar.gz formats.

Seems to me that there could be inherent issues involved when individual developers use distros which uses different versions of software. Example might be if the package configuration calls for a minimum of gcc 4.1 but a developer is using gcc4.5 might there not be potential conflicts in the build if a typical downloader's distro uses only gcc4.2 ?

I hope I'm asking that clearly. I know software should be reasonably backwards compatible but I have seen the rare instance where it is not.

Wouldn't it make more sense for kde developers to all use a simple source based distro for their development work? Wouldn't that eliminate some bug problems.

Since I use Debian, I'm thinking in Debian terms here, but wouldn't it be desireable to build using a source distro based off of only the stable packages in the Debian/stable repository? Those packages are reasonably "tried and true" and a developer could reasonably say "If it'll work on this build it will work on any more up to date builds, no problem."

Just seems to me that a lot of the bugs could be eliminated simply by using a baseline source based distro. Heck, I'm not even suggesting Debian over any other distro, Maybe kde should even put out a developer's distro .iso which is nothing but the source files and the required, recommended, and suggested files for a good kde build.

Am I engaging in crazy talk or envisioning a pipe dream?

Luckily since we have a large number of developers each hailing from a diverse number of distros, these issues are caught quickly when they appear. (Which shouldn't be too often anyway)

mshelby wrote:Seems to me that there could be inherent issues involved when individual developers use distros which uses different versions of software. Example might be if the package configuration calls for a minimum of gcc 4.1 but a developer is using gcc4.5 might there not be potential conflicts in the build if a typical downloader's distro uses only gcc4.2 ?

I hope I'm asking that clearly. I know software should be reasonably backwards compatible but I have seen the rare instance where it is not.

I am not sure I understand your question correctly.
Do you mean that it might be a problem if a version check is for GCC4.1 but nobody uses that any more so it might actually no longer work?

mshelby wrote:Wouldn't it make more sense for kde developers to all use a simple source based distro for their development work? Wouldn't that eliminate some bug problems.

Actually this would most likely increase the number problems or rather delay their detection.

Due to the diversity in systems being used by developers, any functionality, file location, system property, etc. which might distribution specific is detected as early as possible (by developers using a different system).
Imagine how bad it would be if those difference were only detected as ate as when distributors build beta packages.

mshelby wrote:Since I use Debian, I'm thinking in Debian terms here, but wouldn't it be desireable to build using a source distro based off of only the stable packages in the Debian/stable repository?

That would not work because the versions of dependecies (e.g. libraries) is a lot older than what will be in the very same system once the newly developed software is becoming available.


Take for example Qt: the version in Debian/stable Lenny is 4.4.3
When Squeeze will be Debian/stable, this will probably be 4.6 or 4.7
So it makes a lot more sense to develop KDE versions which have a chance of going into Squeeze with the respective Qt version rather than the one used for Lenny.

Additionally, new versions of libraries could lead to less bugs in applications, e.g. because the bug was in a library and got fixed there or functionality formerly implemented in an application becomes available in a library and gets a lot more testing due to other apps using it as well.

mshelby wrote:Just seems to me that a lot of the bugs could be eliminated simply by using a baseline source based distro. Heck, I'm not even suggesting Debian over any other distro, Maybe kde should even put out a developer's distro .iso which is nothing but the source files and the required, recommended, and suggested files for a good kde build.

Am I engaging in crazy talk or envisioning a pipe dream?

I think it is more a misunderstanding of implications of developers using different platform stacks.
As I wrote above, different stacks or tool chains allow us to detect wrong assumptions almost instantly, more developers on non-Linux systems would improve that even further (e.g. BSD based developers detecting "Linuxisms", Windows based developers detecting "Unixisms", etc).

Cheers,
_

JontheEchinda wrote:Luckily since we have a large number of developers each hailing from a diverse number of distros, these issues are caught quickly when they appear. (Which shouldn't be too often anyway)

That's true in terms of the major Linux distros, but we could definitely use some more developers on FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, OpenSolaris, etc. Nokia has dropped support for most non-Linux systems, so bit rot is starting to creep in at all levels. Putting one of these on a spare partition goes a long ways towards improving KDE stability.

anda_skoa wrote:Actually this would most likely increase the number problems or rather delay their detection.

Due to the diversity in systems being used by developers, any functionality, file location, system property, etc. which might distribution specific is detected as early as possible (by developers using a different system).
Imagine how bad it would be if those difference were only detected as ate as when distributors build beta packages.

Thank you for the thoughtful and well reasoned reply!
Makes sense.