On Thu, Feb 08, 2024 at 08:43:52PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > One thing that seems to be overlooked in many of the posts on this thread: > > Nobody can *force* the KDE Plasma maintainers to do *anything*, just > like nobody can force *any* packager to do anything. Fedora a > volunteer-run project. We're mostly doing this "for fun" (or at least, > some definition of "fun"). So if the KDE Plasma maintainers / the KDE > SIG decides that they do not want to keep supporting the Plasma / X11 > session, that is their choice. However, I am not sure whether I like > it or not that there's an ongoing effort to add this functionality > back with separate packages. > > For me, the only acceptable way to do this would be in a way that does > in no way make maintaining the Plasma / Wayland packages more > difficult or burdensome, since the original intent of dropping the > Plasma / X11 session was to *lower* the maintenance burden. Adding > back the Plasma / X11 session with separate packages might cause > additional overhead for the KDE SIG (for example, needing to update > kwin-x11 whenever there is a kwin update). That would be the "usual" > way to handle this according to Fedora policies. > > However, that would be counter to the original purpose of dropping the > functionality from the packages maintained by the KDE SIG. But again, > nobody can *force* package maintainers to support something they don't > want to support. So in this case, I think it would be good to have > something like a clarification to the Updates Policy (and / or other > policies, as necessary) for this case to resolve the contradiction - > something like "updates for KDE Plasma packages are not required to be > coordinated with packages for the Plasma / X11 session". > > I'm also unsure how handling bug reports would best work in this > situation. People *will* report bugs against the wrong components, > causing additional work for the KDE SIG. (Hell, I'm getting bug > reports filed against elementary / Pantheon packages, and there's not > even a usable Pantheon session in Fedora yet!) Yeah. So, what advantages are there to this being in the main fedora collection of packages over just in a copr? I suppose with official packages you get bugzilla for bugs? Although copr's get discussion threads that many people use that way. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
