call for votes: KDE4 uploads to universe
rmjb at mail.com
Wed Mar 14 04:29:00 GMT 2007
Hello All, I hope I'm not out of place commenting on this long discussion,
especially since I'm not an MOTU (yet?).
Firstly the back and forth of all this sound a little of what people say
debian is becoming, too much politics. I am a debian outsider so I don't
know this first hand, but this is the image that is bandied about outside.
Secondly, if the kubuntu council want kde4 packages in feisty, and MOTU
thinks it will be too difficult to support (and rightfully so), can't they
go into feisty backports? Users are already informed that the backports
repository is *not* supported, and the kinds of users that would want to
test kde4 would be those that use backports anyhow.
Again, I apologise if I am out of place, but I have read all that has gone
- Best Regards,
On 3/14/07, Jordan Mantha <mantha at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> 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
> move on.
> Ubuntu-motu mailing list
> Ubuntu-motu at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
Reporter: What is your opinion on the obesity problem?
King: I prefer it to the famine problem
- Wizard of ID
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ubuntu-motu