On Thursday, November 20, 2014 03:39:47 PM Harald Sitter wrote: > On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Scott Kitterman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thursday, November 20, 2014 03:19:10 PM Jonathan Riddell wrote: > >> I'd like to propose to the tech board to give an update allowance for new > >> versions of KDE Frameworks. I don't expect this to be the quickest of > >> discussions so we may as well get started :) > >> > >> Currently we have a micro release update exception for KDE SC bugfix > >> releases. > >> > >> KDE Frameworks has no bugfix releases because upstream decided they > >> didn't > >> have the resources to make them. Instead they have new releases every > >> month with both bugfixes and new features. However these are libraries > >> so > >> applications will be using the existing ABI and that ABI (the symbols) is > >> not allowed to change. The functionality of those symbols is also not > >> allowed to change. Any new features are in new symbols and existing > >> applications won't use them. So updates in the archive will be bugfix > >> only > >> for applications in the archive. > > > > They already failed at this once, so I don't feel confident in this > > assertion. > So did kdelibs4. > > >> Allowing a SRU version exception will allow these bugfixes. It will also > >> make it easier for backports of Plasma to use the version of KF5 in the > >> archive. It will also make Kubuntu a nicer platform for people > >> developing > >> with Qt and KF5 because they'll be able to easily get the latest version. > >> > >> KF5 is in Utopic but nothing in the archive uses it so it might be a nice > >> way to start and reassure everyone it'll be a smooth process. > >> > >> I'd like to send this to the tech board, any thoughts? > > > > I'm against it. > > Against asking? Oo
Yes. I don't think it's appropriate to get a blanket exception given the upstream maintenance (or lack there of) philosophy. So I don't think we should ask if we can do something I don't think we should do. > > We got the exception for KDE4 because upstream had an updates policy > > (which > > you wrote/socialized upstream) that was consistent with our SRU > > requirements. This is not true for KF5. I don't think that the fact that > > there was an exception for KDE4 is relevant. > > Except that frameworks derive from the same code base, are made by the > same people and powers the continuations of previously seen kdelibs4 > applications. > > > The upstream maintenance policy is clearly at odds with our SRU policy, so > > an exception is inappropriate. Consider that it's called a micro-release > > exception and upstream has decided they aren't doing micro-releases at > > all. > > > > Since we will freeze our versions for development with a compatible KF5 > > and > > Plasma 5, there's no need for newer feature versions in the archive. We > > have approximately a bazillion PPAs for people that want newer crack. We > > shouldn't inflict it on the entire user base. > > There is a need for bugfixes, which unfortunately may or may not > contain features. That being said, with frameworks being mostly > libraries a 'feature' is a new function, which quite simply can not > break existing functions by being there. C++ doesn't work like this. I completely agree bug fixes are needed. I think it's very unfortunate that upstream decided to abandon their traditional post-release support. The proper fix for that, however, is not to dump the crack of the day onto all our users. Scott K -- kubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-devel
