On April 29, 2014 7:30:50 PM EDT, Albert Astals Cid <aa...@kde.org> wrote: >El Dimarts, 29 d'abril de 2014, a les 19:23:07, Scott Kitterman va >escriure: >> On April 29, 2014 2:07:52 PM EDT, Albert Astals Cid <aa...@kde.org> >wrote: >> >El Dimarts, 29 d'abril de 2014, a les 19:55:42, Andreas K. Huettel >va >> > >> >escriure: >> >> > El Dimarts, 29 d'abril de 2014, a les 15:04:59, Andreas K. >Huettel >> > >> >va >> > >> >> > escriure: >> >> > > Practically this just means that what used to be the stable >> > >> >branch now >> > >> >> > > becomes the distribution patch collection. >> >> > >> >> > No, it means that you use the next release as you would do now >> > >> >since it >> > >> >> > will have the bug you found fixed, or do you guys have a >> > >> >distribution >> > >> >> > patch collection for firefox? >> >> >> >> Bad example, our stable users are running Firefox Extended Support >> > >> >Release. >> > >> >> (There still is a patch collection, which afaics however mostly >> > >> >targets arch >> > >> >> compatibility (alpha, freebsd), library unbundling and build >system >> > >> >fixes.) >> > >> >Ok, then ignore the example, as said, you would just update to the >next >> > >> >release that fixes all the bugs anyway that you would want to >> >distro-patch >> >anyway. >> >> For non-rolling distros, at some point you have to stop and release. >A mix >> of new features and bug fixes aren't going to be allowed in. >> >> We (Kubuntu) have been delivering KDE SC point releases as >post-release >> updates to our users for most (maybe all) KDE4 releases. That's over >with >> KF5. > >For Ubuntu I can use the Firefox example. So can you explain why is KF5 >different than firefox?
Firefox (and Chromium too) are handled like no other packages in the archive. It's the best known (to average computer users) FOSS brand. There's not much choice but to ship it and given the combination of library bundling and the presence of security fixes in essentially every release there's no realistic choice but to eat releases whole (despite viewing the necessity as being highly distasteful). Canonical has also funded significant engineering resources to maintain Ubuntu Firefox packages and do extensive regression testing. None of the above is relevant to KF5. If I were to ask for the kind of update policy Ubuntu has for Firefox, I am pretty sure it would get laughed out of the room. I've gotten exceptions approved for quite a number of packages, so I think I have a reasonable basis to form an opinion on what's likely to be approved. The KF5 plan amounts to "Non-rolling distros: you're on your own." Scott K _______________________________________________ release-team mailing list release-team@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
