On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 22:04 -0500, Steve Cossette wrote: > I > On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 9:51 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 20:43 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 12:33 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 16:03 +0100, Marc Deop i Argemí wrote: > > > > > We are not banning nor deleting anything. We are not > > > > > _supporting_ > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > you are removing X11 from the builds deliberately , when > > > > many people , members of Fedora on devel mailing list, express > > > > that > > > > they want have X11 , in fact we have many people that defend > > > > keep > > > > X11 . > > > > > > 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. > > > > nobody can force me use wayland , we volunteer maintain KDE Plasma > > X11 > > , why do you think, we want force someone to do anything ? they are > > force us do a new packages, they remove X11 without consensus, they > > can > > leave the packages alone . > > > > > 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. > > > > It is a false excuse and not true, is not more difficult nor > > burdensome, we had many burdensome with the default be wayland and > > hundreds of bugs opened and never fixed with crashes only on > > wayland > > session . > > > > > 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). > > > > is the opposite, KDE SIG are causing additional overhead to who > > want > > use X11 and the package maintainer forcing use of wayland and why > > does > > the will of KDE SIG have to prevail? > > > > I also maintain many KDE packages and I had a overhead with wayland > > crashes > > > > > That would be the "usual" > > > way to handle this according to Fedora policies. > > > > > > > The usual is, if someone want maintain the package , they can > > maintain > > it, no one complains about an hypothetical burden > > > > > 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. > > > > They don't have support X11 , they have the work of keep the > > removal of > > X11 in their packages . > > > > Other thing that KDE SIG misses , is how testing , let says, as > > usual, > > some app crash , and we ask have you wayland session or X11 > > session, if > > you have wayland try X11 , if it runs at X11 and crash on wayland , > > this fact can help find the problem and not the opposite . > > > > also in kde-wayland you can run in x11 envoirment with env > > QT_QPA_PLATFORM=xcb > > > > So just thinking removing this part of the functionalities on KDE , > > IMHO is lack of knowledge of graphics and bad for Fedora. IMHO the > > future is have both technologies and not replace it > > > > > > Is very sad read that some people think in remove it and force > > people > > use an technology that they think that don't have some important > > features and issues in his opinions , is less important than false > > argumentation , that will give burden . when they are burned to who > > want use X11 > > > > > > > > > > > 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!) > > > > > > Fabio > > > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > -- > > Sérgio M. B. > > -- > > > > > I am not gonna reply to all of that because all we are doing at this > point is repeating the same thing. But we are NOT stopping you from > using x11. You can either build it yourself and put it on a copr > (it’s not like neal is using voodoo in his copr), use the copr we > provide or … so you agree that are giving the overhead to us (the people who want keep X11 as it is ) > With the change proposal, fedora (as a distro) the kde sig has > proposed to move away from packaging x11 for plasma 6, and by > accepting the proposal, fedora (as an entity) agreed. > > Fedora has a reputation of moving forwards, not going backwards. > > Other false excuse, we not going backwards and we not moving forward, we are moving to swamp , with people divided, which never happened to me and I use Red Hat 1998 (more or less) and started maintaining packages in 2012 > -- Sérgio M. B. -- _______________________________________________ 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
