[lubuntu-devel] LXQt

Wed May 4 17:54:08 UTC 2016

Hi,

Thanks for the explanation. But please, try to fix stuff in the official
repository, not in a PPA. If you need sponsorship for an upload, I can help.
I'm sorry to hear this kind of breakage after the release, this really
needs to be check way before release time.

Regards,
Julien Lavergne
Le 4 mai 2016 4:04 PM, Jörn Schönyan <joern.schoenyan at web.de> a écrit :

> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/lubuntu-devel/attachments/20160504/b59dc1b4/attachment-0001.html>