Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-kde (250 mails)

[Sven Burmeister <sven.burmeister@xxxxxxx>]

Am Sonntag, 18. Juli 2010, 10:54:58 schrieb Cristian Morales Vega:
> 2010/7/18 Sven Burmeister <sven.burmeister@xxxxxxx>:
> > Am Sonntag, 18. Juli 2010, 00:12:03 schrieb Markus Slopianka:
> > > On Saturday 17 July 2010 10:17:26 Sven Burmeister wrote:
> > > Stupid policy, but if that's the way to get more bugfixes in people's
> > > hands and relieve us K3b team members from reports against bugs that
> > > are already fixed, that's the only way to go.....
> >
> > INew versions may introduce regressions, so unless you can guarantee this
> > won't happen with k3b, you should not blame a policy that strives to
> > provide users with a stable distro.
>
> To be sincere, in this case I tend to agree with Markus. In general
> update libraries is somehow dangerous, OK. But with applications that
> can only cause problems to themselves the policy makes less sense.
> Now upstream comes here to explain us they have a branch where
> "Strings and features are frozen". Can they still introduce
> regressions? Sure, nobody is perfect. But IMHO the real question is:
> it is possible that they break more things than they fix?
> We only provide patches, no version upgrades? Well, that's exactly
> what the k3b team is doing here! The only difference is that when we
> provide those patches we create a new package with a higher *release*
> number. When they provide those patches they create a new tarball with
> a higher *version* number. The difference is just cosmetic, the real
> work is the same... well, with the difference that the k3b team is
> more qualified for the work. If there is a problem it is with trust.
> And since we trust them enough to put his program as the default for
> CD brurning, we probably should trust them enough to do the work of
> maintaining a branch with just bugfixes (i.e. basically to maintain
> the package for us). Isn't this the wet dream of every distro?
> Upstream maintaining your packages!
>
> My vote is to trust them here. If they ever break something ok,
> rethink this... but give them an opportunity.

I understand him and you, but the problem is, a policy with a lot of 
exceptions won't work. Thus it is not about trusting project x or y. And it's 
not like openSUSE would not offer current packages of k3b including all fixes 
from upstream. I might be wrong but this policy is not that uncommon. In fact 
ubuntu ships some beta package of digikam, which does not make sense to me. 
And distros like debian do not do version updates for their stable releases 
either. openSUSE is not a rolling distro, so one would have to push it that 
way if one wants those kind of updates.

> But anyway, users that want to have the latest versions of KDE
> applications can just use the KDE:UpdatedApps. That will update to not
> just the 2.0 branch but to whatever the latest official release is.
> Markus, to solve your problem I suggests you write somewhere, very
> clearly, that openSUSE users should test with the k3b version from the
> KDE:UpdatedApps repository before reporting a bug.
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-kde+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx