Kubuntu Updates Policy

Roderick B. Greening roderick.greening at gmail.com
Fri Sep 25 15:56:41 BST 2009

All sounds reasonable to me

> I have an outstanding action to draft an updates policy for Kubuntu and
> take it for the tech board for approval.  The two questions are what to put
> in -updates and what to put in -backports.
> Historically (before Hardy), Ridelll used to publish updated KDE version
> updates outside of the Ubuntu infrastructure.
> In Hardy, we put KDE 3.5.10 first in backports and later in updates. IMO,
> it went OK, but took a lot of work to get through regressions.  We also
> backports Qt 4.4 to Hardy and it did not go well (lots of problems with
> non-KDE apps).
> For Intrepid, we released with KDE 4.1.2 and put 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 in updates
> (via proposed of course).  We also put 4.2.0 in backports.  All of this
> went well and we had very good upstream support for dealing with
> regressions in the point releases.
> I think we mostly expected this to be the model for the future.
> In Jaunty, we got a bit cross-threaded between Qt and KDE expectations.  Qt
> expected Qt 4.5/KDE 4.2 and KDE expected Qt 4.4/KDE 4.2.  As a result, we
> have some minor regressions that are not supported by upstream.  Currently
> updates are limited to PPAs.
> We know that KDE 4.4 will be developed with Qt 4.6.  These will be our
> targets for 10.04.
> Based on the experience with backporting Qt 4.4 in Hardy, I am convinced
> backports of 2nd digit updates of Qt is a bad idea.
> Based on the experience with 4.1 and 4.2, I'm comfortable with pushing 3rd
> digit KDE updates to proposed/updates as long as we have upstream support.
> I think that given the pace of Qt/KDE updates it will be rare to have a
> good mix available for backports.
> Here is what I propose:
> New KDE versions (e.g. 4.3/4.4) only in PPAs.
> Micro-version updates for KDE to -proposed/updates if we have upstream
> supoort (we did for Intrepid and will for Karmic/Lucid and do not for
> Jaunty).
> Micro-version updates for KDE to backports otherwise.
> No backports of major Qt updates.
> I think we need to do some experimenting with the idea of micro-version Qt
> backports.
> The backports aspects of this don't need tech board approval.  I'd like to
> push KDE 4.2.4 to Jaunty backports ASAP  and then look at giving Qt 4.5.2 a
> go.
> If people generally agree with this approach, I'll draft up something for
> tech board approval for 4.3/4.4 in updates for Karmic and Lucid.
> Scott K

Roderick B. Greening, B.Sc.
Paradise, NL Canada
E-mail/MSN: roderick.greening at gmail.com 
LP: launchpad.net/~roderick-greening 
Wiki: wiki.ubuntu.com/rgreening 
Blog: roderick-greening.blogspot.com 
Twitter: twitter.com/rgreening
Identica: identi.ca/rgreening

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/kubuntu-devel/attachments/20090925/bf7b8570/attachment-0002.pgp 

More information about the kubuntu-devel mailing list