[lubuntu-devel] LXQt

Wed May 4 21:35:55 UTC 2016

Hi Brendan,

Once the go ahead comes in from Julien, the comment "*NOTICE*: always
subscribe Lubuntu Packages Team <https://launchpad.net/~lubuntu-packaging> to
bugs encountered within Lubuntu. " will come back in to play, and as such
you good people will be informed. While we were having a feel about and
bouncing things around on strictly non-official areas, I would not have
formulated up bug reports for you guys with such stuff. As mentioned, we
discussed some on IRC with one moving to a bug fix and one to be discussed
between Julien and Alf.

Regards,

Phill.

On 4 May 2016 at 22:18, Brendan Perrine <walterorlin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 4 May 2016 16:41:02 +0100
> "Phill. Whiteside" <phillwuk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > 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".
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Phill.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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 :-)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > 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):
> > >> http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct
> > >>
> > >> 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:
> > >>
> > >>
> http://ubottu.com/meetingology/logs/lubuntu-devel/2016/lubuntu-devel.2016-03-09-18.59.moin.txt
> > >> so the change recorded on the wiki discussing a release in b-cycle is
> a
> > >> pretty dramatic change:
> > >> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Lubuntu/LXQt#When_will_it_arrive.3F
> > >> 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>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> 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.
> > >>>
> > >>> Regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> Phill.
> > >>>
> > >>> 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:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Greetings,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 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:
> > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-devel
> > >
> > > --
> > > Lubuntu-devel mailing list
> > > Lubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-devel
> > >
> > >
> Yes the version of juffed in the repos does not work well at all.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/juffed/+bug/1500122 is bad
> enough bug that it makes it hard to want to ship the current version of
> juffed on a supposed lxqt iso. Also will there be a way to get lubuntu
> packages team email for bugs reported on these packages To better triage
> and pay attention to these bugs automatically. This should probably be
> pretty easy to confirm.
>
> --
> Brendan Perrine <walterorlin at gmail.com>
>
> --
> Lubuntu-devel mailing list
> Lubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/lubuntu-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/lubuntu-devel/attachments/20160504/cb3c1907/attachment-0001.html>