Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-kde (310 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: openSUSE KDE team (was Re: [opensuse-kde] Missing package/update in KDF)
I wrote a lengthy reply but in the end it did not make sense to me to repeat
my arguments.

Thus I will try to keep it short and summarise the answers:

If there is no openSUSE KDE team employed at openSUSE we should get rid of
most of http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:KDE_team since reading things like
"SUSE employees working mainly on maintaining and extending KDE for openSUSE
and SUSE Linux Enterprise:" or even "And from other SUSE teams:" triggers
wrong hopes if one wants to put it nicely.

-"You" are the community: as part of that I vote for getting rid of "openSUSE
stable" since it does not work anyway the way it is supposed to. I did mention
that opinion in the thread on factory, that's my vote.

-Contribution: I do not see how shifting around a few repos will suddenly
increase contribution to e.g. KDS. People could have done that in the past via
SRs already.

One might argue back and forth about whether "real" commitment includes the
willingness to deal with osc, i.e. the command line. IMHO those that are
willing and able to use osc do so already.

Having a GUI lowers the hurdles to contribute. Yet anything related to linking
is not maintainable with the webgui. In the past, doing a SR and others
updating the link after accepting the SR, did not work well. Whatever repo
consists of links will suffer compared to the "real" repo. KR48 has proved
this in the past, I do not see why it should be different with KR49.

-Other desktops' teams provide stable releases: That might be the case, I only
use KDE and hence cannot comment on the stability and update policy of other
DEs. As long as they follow "openSUSE stable" instead of "upstream stable",
i.e. shipping all bugfix releases as regular updates, they are on a different
schedule than the one I support. Other distros do ship bugfix releases and are
also successful.

I was told that a fixed set of bugs is better than shipping dozens of bugfixes
with the potential danger of a regression as update – even if the latter would
get fixed within a reasonable amount of time and the possibility to revert
until the regression is fixed. I do not agree with that.

For me a stable openSUSE consists of the base system and a repo with the
latest minor upstream KDE release. That's the stable release I want to
contribute to. KDS is not stable for me but simply frozen and kind of
unmaintained.

-Without KDF there would be no room for large packaging changes etc.: I'd
assume that this kind of change does not happen within the schedule of minor
upstream releases, i.e. it would happen in KUSC and not KRxy.

-There is no evidence that KDF worked worse than KR49 does now and you have
not experienced any nasty issues in KR49 yet: I mentioned the pnm example.
People submitted the update to KDF it was accepted but never made it to the
user, because there is an extra mile which not even the paid employee did want
to go. In KRxy the new pnm was submitted, got accepted and shipped to the
user. There were some packages broken in KDF for weeks or e.g. calligra not
updated for months. KR49 is not worse than that but rather better. KR48 had
similar issues as KDF because links were not updated.

Sure there could be some nasty issues in the future, but "KDF SR to official
update" even failed for simple issues. And my claim is that most people
concentrate on one repo + a few extra packages here and there. But not KDS +
KDF + updating links to KRxy, always switching back an forth updating a link
here, doing a backport there, making sure it gets into the official updates
etc.

Sven
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-kde+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-kde+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >