call for votes: KDE4 uploads to universe
mantha at ubuntu.com
Wed Mar 14 04:09:34 GMT 2007
Sarah Hobbs wrote:
> I hope i'm not going to start too much trouble here, with this, but...
> I think you've all clearly stated your opinions, both via here, the MOTU
> council, and in blogs, so why is this still going on?
> It's clear that you wont accept it, no matter what the people who run
> kubuntu and decide on where kubuntu goes say, and no matter how much you
> do or do not know about it (eg, that this will not replace .kde/
> settings, it's in .kde4 instead).
> This is the reason the kubuntu council exists - for kubuntu memberships,
> and for figuring out how best to work with the situation with regards to
> kubuntu, where it wont break anything else.
> The MOTU is not expected to know how KDE, or XFCE, or even gnome works -
> it's desktop agnostic, and that's the way it should be. So, why is it
> making decisions on kde4 packages anyway, which is an approved spec?
Well, I haven't said anything on the subject yet, but I'd like to
respond so some of the points of both Sarah's post and others.
First, I disagree with Sarah that the issue is for the Kubuntu Council
to decide. I really respect the KC but the packages in question are to
be in Universe so it is the MOTU's domain. If the KC wants to make the
ultimate decision they should put the packages in Main. That said, I
don't particularly see this as something the MOTU Council should be
deciding either. I have to say I'm a little disturbed that the MC has
been making decisions that I really feel MOTU should be making (this and
SRU policy are the particular ones I'm thinking of). I thought the MC
was supposed to approve members and MOTUs and provide some leadership,
not take on every decision that comes up. I think it's both unfair to
put the burden on the MC and I think it's also demotivating to MOTUs at
a time when we are trying to excite and build our community.
This is still being discussed because people aren't settled with the
issue. I've seen all the MC members point out both sides. I don't think
there has been any attitude of "We don't want it no matter what".
Everybody has been asking questions because they want to make an
informed decision. I think any time somebody comes to us with "I know
it's after UVF but we want these development snapshot packages in, and
we aren't going to support them." we should be a bit cautious.
Back to the issue at hand, I see 3 issues:
1) Supportability. We are trying to do better with Universe QA/QC and
it would be somewhat of a bad example to have KDE (I'm not sure everyone
will know that it's development only) packages that we have no intention
of supporting. Jonathan has said that they don't plan on supporting the
packages so it'll be up to the MOTU. I also think these package will be
inherently difficult to support after release. We normally do not
include new upstream versions in -updates so I see them as basically
unsupportable in a stable release beyond basic packaging issues.
2) Usefulness. I question the usefulness of the packages. I was trying
to set up some KDE4 development stuff the other day for Kalzium and I
was told that I shouldn't use the snapshot packages because they will be
outdated so quickly. If this is the case and the packages will be
virtually useless at or shortly after the release of Feisty then I see
little benefit. In fact, it would seem more confusing to people because
they won't know whether to get the Feisty packages or from some other
source. If this is not the case, please chime in. I think this is most
of the issue, we are seeing little gain for the work.
3) Timing. We a long past NewPackagesFreeze (Feb. 22nd) so this is an
exception request. Given the items above I just don't see a lot of gain.
On one hand, we've already got a lot of crack in Universe and I'm
guessing a few KDE4 packages wouldn't add a ton to it. On the other
hand, the request seems mostly a workaround for Jonathan to get more
archs. I think perhaps a better solution would be to get him some access
to other archs. I think Brandon and Andrew are working getting our build
farm more suitable for this sort of thing. I also wonder if Canonical
would have anything for Jonathan to build on. Seems sort of odd he'd be
stuck with i386 only.
Overall, I think maybe we just needed better/earlier communication. This
is not a KDE-specific issue, at least for me, and I hope the KC,
Jonathan, and the Kubuntu MOTUs don't take it that way. In the end I
don't have a strong opinion either way. I'd rather we just decide and
More information about the Ubuntu-motu