phillwuk at gmail.com
Wed May 4 15:41:02 UTC 2016
I certainly think it was a useful excerise to have a decent play with
Xenail, the bug in Trojita has been narrowed down to the point of a fix and
it was discovered the repos in ubuntu and debian were out of sync. Two
issues that would have bitten us further down the road and as well resolved
now so time can be devoted to testing 16.10 as it comes to prototype
knowing those two are gone! I look forward to the next release from
debian-lxqt of the lxqt-meta, the timing of which agaida said is "hopefully
we have the next iteration out on may 16. - maybe end of may. so packages
will be out in june/july".
On 4 May 2016 at 16:04, "Jörn Schönyan" <joern.schoenyan at web.de> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> the purpose of the PPA is, of course, to have a reliable source for using
> LXQt. Sure, LXQt is in the xenial repository, but
> 1) it wasn't when I started the PPA
> 2) LXQt in xenial segfaults (lxqt-config-monitor, for example)
> and last but not least
> 3) LXQt in xenial is taken from Debian experimental and the packaging at
> the time when it was synced wasn't ready.
> I had a chat with agaida, who made most of the packaging. He sees problems
> incoming when people use LXQt from xenial official repos and then upgrade
> to yakkety. We had a pretty long chat (like 2 hours) and he recommends that
> we try to get a bugfix out at least for liblxqt. liblxqt needs to provide
> the virtual package lxqt-abi-0-10.0 to ensure that user installations
> won't break. This should also solve the problems with lxqt-config-monitor,
> if I understood this correctly.
> On the other hand, the PPA isn't just for LXQt, it is for some
> applications, too. I don't think people should use (or want to use) juffed
> from xenial, which is basically 5 (!) years old. This is freaking ancient.
> Trojita (mail client) is in the PPA, but not in xenial.
> By the way: the PPA is NOT a daily PPA, as Simon stated.
> Best regards, Jörn
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 04. Mai 2016 um 13:17 Uhr
> *Von:* "Julien Lavergne" <gilir at ubuntu.com>
> *An:* ∅ <wxl at ubuntu.com>
> *Cc:* lubuntu-devel <lubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com>, "Simon Quigley" <
> tsimonq2 at ubuntu.com>
> *Betreff:* Re: [lubuntu-devel] LXQt
> Hi all,
> I'm sorry because most of this mess was my inability to explain what I
> have in my mind. I'll try to make it more clear :
> For 16.10, the goal is to make an ISO of Lubuntu using LXQt. I worked on
> the seed to make it happen, but It's not ready yet. It's a matter of 1 week
> or 2.
> The goal is to have something real to test, to see what is needed to make
> useable for people. Don't expect it as default for 16.10.
> For installing LXQt, I really would like that people stay with official
> packages, and stay away for PPA (It's bad habit for normal users to add
> random PPA). I don't even recommend the Lubuntu daily PPA because it's
> unstable by essence ( it builds upstream git, it can't be stable). Official
> repo contains stable release of LXQt, which people should install if they
> don't know what to do. That said, that probably need some clarification on
> the documentation side, but I trust you guys for making it clearer that my
> explanation s :-)
> For PPA, to be honest, I don't understand what Jorn is trying to achieve
> with his PPA. As long as we have stable release in 16.04, I don't
> understand the need of having stable packages in a PPA (but I didn't look
> closely to this, so it's maybe just me). I understand what Simon is doing
> with its PPA, but I'm not sure it should be able the main way to install
> LXQt (for the reason that it's bad habit to add PPA). At least, having it
> as an alternative it's fine (mentioning it's only a convenient way to
> install all the packages).
> For the metapackage in lubuntu daily PPA, I'll remove it shortly. It is
> quite useless now, and confuse people. For now, Lubuntu with LXQt doesn't
> really exist. It will for 16.10, for testing only, so please be patient.
> Let me know if it's clearer, I'm currently on my phone without keyboard,
> so I can't send long email :-)
> Julien Lavergne
> Le 3 mai 2016 6:44 PM, "Walter Lapchynski" <wxl at ubuntu.com> a écrit :
>> The fact of the matter is that transparency is a key component of open
>> source. This is demonstrated in the actual Ubuntu Code of Conduct (see the
>> "Be Collaborative" section):
>> Backroom discussions are for multinational corporations. Unlike that
>> situation, where intentions are questionable, our own backroom discussions
>> may not be some "clandestine" political act, but that does not mean that
>> it's ok because of it. For example, I don't know what the heck you're
>> talking about in the above with regards to bug fixes and mis-matches. That
>> is indicative of the fact that transparency is not being upheld. We are a
>> team here, not a dictatorship. No one really wants to be part of that kind
>> of team because, frankly, they're not.
>> Also our last IRC meeting (attended by our developers), had much
>> discussion about preparing LXQt in Lubuntu for y-cycle:
>> so the change recorded on the wiki discussing a release in b-cycle is a
>> pretty dramatic change:
>> That being said, it would be wise for the sake of the rest of the team to
>> include the logs of all these discussions.
>> On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 8:31 AM, Phill. Whiteside <phillwuk at gmail.com>
>>> Hi Walter,
>>> I'm not sure where it states we are not going to attempt a release for
>>> 16.10? The initial assertion by Julien to *just* use lxqt from debian was
>>> made before it was apparent that xorg / desktop etc. are not in that
>>> meta-package. They are all flavour specific. Jorn (one of our devs) and Alf
>>> (agaida on irc) have discussed the various packages and there is a bug fix
>>> pending for the mail application. We also discovered the mis-match in repos
>>> which has been forwarded to Julien for he and Alf to have a chat about once
>>> Julien returns from his sabbatical. Between emails, chats on Facebook and
>>> on various IRC channels I have pulled together all that information as up
>>> to date as possible (Been a long time since I rebuilt a package to confirm
>>> the cause of a bug!). Nothing clandestine, just people on different media
>>> whilst getting an up to date status report from Developers so that we know
>>> where things are up to.
>>> On 3 May 2016 at 16:17, ∅ <maps.backward at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I find it rather alarming and surprising to hear the notion that we do
>>>> not plan on even trying to ship Lubuntu with LXQt for Yakkety. This is a
>>>> marked change from everything I've been hearing.
>>>> That being said, I'd like to hear some more clarity on why and what
>>>> exactly the plan is. That being said, conversation logs are essential. It's
>>>> annoying that private channels seem to be appropriate places to decide such
>>>> sweeping turn of events.
>>>> Including the rest of the team in such discussions is imperative in
>>>> order to not undermine the team. An IRC meeting is a good forum for such
>>>> things. If this is not possible, the next best thing is a summary to the
>>>> public mailing list with reference to the logs of the conversation.
>>>> Anything else lacks transparency and ultimately violates the core of
>>>> what an open source project is. We have few members in our team and we risk
>>>> losing them if we continue to practice this way.
>>>> If the media was aware of this, there would certainly be a public
>>>> outcry. Regardless of intentions, this is not very open.
>>>> On May 3, 2016 5:20 AM, "Simon Quigley" <tsimonq2 at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>>>>> I didn't ask for Y to be untouched, although I would like you not to
>>>>> mess with it. :)
>>>>> It's much easier for people to follow along if it's on one medium
>>>>> where everyone can participate. I've seen little random tidbits on #lxde,
>>>>> #debian-lxqt, and #lubuntu-devel but not enough to tell me what's going on.
>>>>> #phillw is NOT an LXQt channel and if you want to be public with your
>>>>> conversations, like an open project should, please use an official channel.
>>>>> And if they are in more than one medium, when you change the
>>>>> instructions, it would be beneficial to send something to the ML stating
>>>>> all the points made, or something along those lines. We all have an email
>>>>> address, so carbon-copying exists.
>>>>> I'd like to reiterate that I'm frustrated that not all of us were
>>>>> involved, let alone informed, on the discussions. We just have this final
>>>>> decision that doesn't have general consensus but rather a hard-set,
>>>>> non-transparent instruction set in place. While I recognize you are all not
>>>>> on the same medium, please just send something to the ML before making the
>>>>> decision. That's transparency, what this project is supposed to be.
>>>>> Simon Quigley
>>>>> tsimonq2 at ubuntu.com
>>>>> tsimonq2 on Freenode
>> @wxl | http://polka.bike
>> Lubuntu Release Manager & Head of QA
>> Ubuntu PPC Point of Contact
>> Ubuntu Oregon LoCo Team Leader
>> Ubuntu Membership Board & LoCo Council Member
>> Eugene Unix & GNU/Linux User Group Co-Organizer
> -- Lubuntu-devel mailing list Lubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com Modify
> settings or unsubscribe at:
> Lubuntu-devel mailing list
> Lubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lubuntu-devel