Roman Savochenko via tde-users wrote: >> Raise a ticket in TGW, so that we do not forget it and much better >> provide a patch that addresses the issue (not commenting out in the code) > > I write nothing to TGW right now since there lie tens my previous patches! > There are a lot of patches (PRs) in the queue there. No one complains, except you. It is your free choice. I personally see it as symbiosis. And at some point of time someone picks up the patch works it out and it either accepted or rejected. >> > There is no problem in building for archived Debian for such support, >> > and I do that for my project, so proving the developing to environments >> > of starting the program and some early. :) >> >> Of course there is no problem ... it just makes no sense. > > OK, how many sense in holding all previous binary and source packages? :) Zero sense, because it is not a library/archive. It is working distro. Space costs and it makes not sense to keep olds stuff for distros that are out of support. Feel free to create a library/archive and pay for it. No one will object. I see now in EU storage costs for 5TB are 12,97/month ... so about 78€/y. If it is important for you, you can provide for it. >> This is normal ... when you are not the "local authority". I actually >> like it. It is usually called team work. > > I know how teams work, and this one just authoritarian cast tree, when > someones on the top think they "know roots" and other do not, and for > decades they can't fix problems fixed by experienced users "without the > root knowledges". That is they let for users "eat the cactus" or drop down > this mess, how do many inexperienced users for that broken KDE3. > AFAIK TDE is improving in the years and I know because I follow TGW, contribute and read the many changes (when time allows). There are some really good developers that joint in the past few years ... that contribute constantly ... and have very high quality contributions ... not like me :) > And for the "local authority", ALL difficult problems are fixed through > hacks! :) > Well ... everybody has the right of it's own opinion, even if it is wrong. >> No idea, but this is the result, when you kind of fork and continue on >> your own. > > Not fork but stupid re-branding, with constant symbols renaming forward > and back, with changing the well tested and debugged building system and > loss support of old systems, so caused many hidden and even visible broken > code instead the using stabilisation of the mature code. Also as changing > habits of the code development and debugging especially for partial fast > building, by implementation cmake, ninja and so on. > I guess you describe here evolution. Sometimes evolution also makes mistakes, but it tends to correct them over time. I personally had conversations (chats and mails) with the "local authority" and understood how they think and operate. I have very positive view of them ... they are indeed acting as authority, because they are indeed the authority over TDE, but they are cooperative and as far as you are also cooperative, it works just fine. I am writing you this, to encourage you and the rest to cooperate, because so it benefits the whole community. >> IMO it would be better for all parties that you try doing only temporary >> changes and try get them into the main repo, because other wise the work >> increases over time. At the end it is your own choice what you do. You >> are the "local authority for your work". > > I NEVER overpress others, leaving for them the responsibility for their > code, which they can improve after exploiting the applied code, especially > when I don't know deep of the problem specific, that is when I don't use > this function! > > And I was forced to create the my partial fork after my critical for me > patches became ignored, that I did not choose that! > And I choose to cooperate and saw my patches go into TDE (one of the first patches is benefitting you too, because it solved UTF-8 in kalendar and kontact and may be other applications) >> If you wish you can write to me in private what issues you have, or post >> them here one by one, so that we could discuss. > > I have no problem with my "hacks", also as I have no time and wishes to > prove something for the "local authority"! :) > I and I guess the rest have also no problems with your fork and patches. The problem is with the attitude published in the news group, where everybody can read it and in fact is factually not true. This is why I am writing to you. Remember - the whole world reads this! >> It would be great if you could contribute, but this includes obeying the >> local authority. I am pretty happy with the cooperation with this local >> authority. Few things/bugs that were bothering me and I fixed were >> accepted without big problems and I learned a lot. I also ported one or >> two applications and it also worked quite well. It is just a normal work >> flow that you have in every company or open source project. > > That is not normal in my open source project! > Well ... so you have a clone/fork of TDE which you commit to maintain yourself. Why bother TDE? >> I really do not understand your frustration, but it is sad to hear >> disappointment. You probably never dealt with Gnome/KDE or other projects >> and their "local authorities" > > I dealt with the official builds of some Linux distributions, and saw > there horde of the patches to KDE3, so I can imagine about that > "tradition". :) > KDE3 is not TDE ... the KDE3 team had it's own issues. I do not think you can compare both. I mean you can compare if you wish of course, but it is not right as these are two different things. >> >> You have to adjust the headers a bit and >> >> recompile, which the devs are doing anyway for us. >> > >> > So, where are you already compiled 14.1.3 for Debian 7,8,9? :) >> >> This is waste of time, disk space (and electricity) I do not have such >> systems - in fact it is actually not recommended (it would be forbidden) >> to use them for security reasons. > > If that waste of time, then you can forget this problem, due to it mostly > for Debian 7 and the old build 14.0.10. When you want to save disk space, > remove old builds, which are not needed anybody exactly. > > And last versions for old distributions and HW I need, due to work with > such hardware, where you cannot to install fresh distributions whether in > reasons of kernels, or specific modules to them, also as through the > productivity and do not generating HW garbage. > I have done some calculations and it does not pay off to keep old hardware. The productivity of CPUs is so low for the power consumption that it obsoletes itself immediately. I had two Acrosser (i386) devices from 2007 with 256MB (yes MB) memory and 300MHz CPU. I had to compile the kernel myself, because of a combination of available but not active drivers. It was a pain. After one of them got broken (I guess the electronics for the CF-IDE controller gave up) I bought a replacement (x86_64) with 4GB memory a decent CPU and the almost same power consumption. Now I do not have to compile the kernel anymore. It works like a charm. This is called evolution. At some point of time things have to be replaced. If I were you I would keep a repository of those old distros (also a repository of the distro itself). I have local repositories, but I tend to update to latest whenever possible. Again, I write this as invitation to cooperate. It benefits everybody. BR ____________________________________________________ tde-users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Web mail archive available at https://mail.trinitydesktop.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
