Plasma 5 on Kubuntu 14.10

[Dimitri John Ledkov]

On 3 July 2014 13:11, Scott Kitterman <ubuntu at kitterman.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:27:03 Jonathan Riddell wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 10:04:00AM +0100, Iain Lane wrote:
>> > I was simply answering the point about remixes and PPAs.
>>
>> Calling it technical preview would be my preferred option.
>>
>> Not being able to make a release is a bigger problem, people need a
>> known working image that they can test on.  It would be clear that no
>> upgrade option would exist, when you're done testing testers would need to
>> reinstall a real release.
>
> If we stop making updates to the image, isn't the last one there the release?

It's just the last daily image. Given how current & pending
directories work, one can have two permament images stored. (current &
pending typically mean "automatic verification passed" and "latest, to
be verified image")

> It's not particularly clear what not releasing means in this context.
>

A released flavour, at cdimage.ubuntu.com/flavour/ has e.g. stable
series builds for point releases (/trusty/, /precise/) and has a
/releases/ subdir with the flavour named as per release - e.g.
flavor-YY.MM-variant-arch.iso, which are additionally mirrored on CDNs
(where demand is high) and are published on torrent tracker etc.

Is Framework 5 (et.al) going to be co-installable with KDE4?
If yes, why a separate PPA is needed, instead of uploading everything
into the archive? (even if daily / from git snapshot code)

Given the desired frequency of releases, which does not align with a
full ubuntu release cycle. There will be no ability to provide
security, updates, proposed and backports pockets & PPAs do not have
such facilities. Given the garbage collection of builds from PPAs and
image build from a given PPA 3 months ago might no longer have sources
intact and hence for example require alternative means, e.g. a sources
image.

In my mind, a released image flavor should have it's sources/binaries
accessible and frozen + have security/updates/proposed/backports
streams available for subsequent updates.

A release every 3 months roughly coincides with a full ubuntu release
and an alpha-2 release. Thus I'd like to understand why a PPA is
needed in the first place, and how a following proposal will not work:
1) start building daily images out of the archive (however good or
bad, e.g. see ubuntu-desktop-next daily image builds)
2) if desired, "release" them coinciding with available milestones
(e.g. alphas/betas/rcs/full-releases) with prominent notices about
limited/reduced support commitments

Or in other words, if it is not ready to go into the archive, then why
is it ready to build images from? It worries me to build images
without prior review by ftp-masters or archive-admins and "release"
them in any shape or form.

-- 
Regards,

Dimitri.