Onsdag den 7. april 2010 13:05:06 skrev Pedro Lopez-Cabanillas:
On Wednesday, April 7, 2010, Martin Schlander wrote:
Tirsdag den 6. april 2010 20:10:15 skrev Raymond Wooninck:
Maybe it would be worthwhile to think about a kind of acceptance cycle? Initially Beta's are put in the Playground repository and are available for people to try them out. If they feel that the application is stable enough for a broader audience, then this can be requested on this list. If the request is accepted, then the package can be moved to the KDE:KDE4:Community repo.
I'd maintain that this should only happen if: 1) there's no officially released, stable software providing the same functionality 2) the app provides functionality that can be said to be genuinely important
Both criteria can be more or less subjective, but the second one, "genuinely important", scares me a bit. How are you proposing to evaluate the importance of a package? If you only take into account the number of users, you may be alienating a minority liking (or neededing) the software. For instance, a package used only by disabled people may fail the majority criteria.
Clearly it's not easy to make a fixed rule for determining when something is important, but that's why I used Kile as one of the examples, it's not used by very many people, but it's very important to those who do write LaTex. KMid would fit in the same category. But e.g. betas of KChess and BasKet would not, because there are stable alternatives. So they should be kept in Playground for geeks and enthusiasts to play with until there are stable releases targetted at casual users.
So, you are proposing some kind of voting, or any other formal process in order to accept and remove packages from Community and Playground? Can you please elaborate your proposal?
Maybe it comes across like I want some sort of fascist rule, but really I just want packagers to think twice and care a bit more about these decisions and to have some general guidelines - because the vast majority of openSUSE users are silent and casual users - and they will add the backports and community repos via yast community repositories list - and will expect them to be pretty much idiot proof. And I for one care a lot about being able to recommend openSUSE to casual users like my mother and father or the casual people in my lug for example. I'm hoping these issues could be resolved by simply calling attention to the matter, and packager "self-jurisdiction".
I am a bit worried by this thread, because I'm also confused about the matter. I'm the upstream maintainer of several applications and also a KDE/openSUSE/OBS user (home:plcl:kde4). I've been recently added to the KDE4:Community and KDE4:Playground repos. My applications at home:plcl:kde4 are MIDI-related. MIDI is a small niche market that nevertheless is important enough for some software manufacturers like Apple, but maybe not enough for openSUSE-KDE?. How do you think I should proceed? I've already added VMPK to KDE4:Community, and I would like to add KMid, KMidimon, KMetronome and Drumstick as well. Would you agree?
I don't know the the status of these apps. If these are labeled as development releases by upstream (i.e. you), I'd say it's up to the packager (i.e. you) to decide. * Do you think these apps are important for their target audience * Is there no stable alternative in the distro offering the same functionality * Is there a risk that casual users "accidentally" install this and get in trouble and think less of the distribution Also keep in mind I don't have any special say or merit that makes my opinions particularly important. I'm just a useless loudmouth translator trying to have a discussion about something that that makes me a little bit concerned. So you shouldn't be worried by threads that I start :-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@opensuse.org