Request for Tech Board approval of proposed Kubuntu Updates policy

Scott Kitterman ubuntu at
Tue Nov 10 20:16:47 GMT 2009

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:01:02 -0800 Kees Cook <kees at> wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 10:37:45PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Please see for the 
>> policy.  We would appreciate review and (hopefully) approval at the next 
>> board meeting for which it would be convenient for the board.
>This proposal looks good.  I would like to understand one portion that
>isn't clear to me, though:
> "For any update, Qt and KDE versions must match. Major Qt versions will
>  not be put in -proposed, -updates, or -backports."
>What happens in the case of needing a newer Qt for a KDE update?
>Has upstream promised not to do micro version updates of KDE that require
>major version updates of Qt?

I don't know that they have explicitly promised this, but that level of 
change needed to cause this is inconsistent with their general policy on 
micro version updates, so I don't think it will come up.

Implicit in the proposed policy is that if we can't put out an update that 
meets the guidelines we are proposing, we can't put it in proposed/updates. 
 As an example, I put KDE 4.2.4 in jaunty-backports because while it was 
generally an improvement (so it was worth providing to users), there were 
some minor regressions that made it unsuitable for -proposed/updates 
(because Kubuntu and KDE were out of sync on which Qt should be shippped - 
that lesson has been learned and shouldn't recurr).

Scott K

More information about the kubuntu-devel mailing list