Re: kde 5.7

[Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de>]

Am Samstag, 9. Juli 2016, 12:25:14 CEST schrieb Andrej Kacian:
> On Sat, 09 Jul 2016 12:00:20 +0200
> 
> Martin Steigerwald <martin@lichtvoll.de> wrote:
> > Diederik, I think this is about "I want an always stable and releaseable
> > testing" again.
> 
> I disagree. This is more about knowing if the package combination
> I am currently running is worth testing and reporting found bugs on, or
> whether I am in some temporary state where some packages I should
> have are still waiting in the queue, and any bug report I make would
> only waste time of the packagers, or whoever else will be reviewing it.

That is part of what this list is for.

Or do you think Debian/Kubuntu Qt/KDE packagers always know which versions of 
which packages go together nicely or not? These effects of mixed KDE 
Frameworks packages between 5.22 and 5.23 have been unknown to them as well.

And heck, if you only want to test when all KF packages are at 5.23 thats easy 
enough to tell as well.

> If the KDE packaging layout was simpler, and all packages followed
> e.g. same naming policy or same versioning scheme, it wouldn't be an
> issue, as it would be easy to verify whether I still have some packages
> waiting for an upgrade. But there are various sets of packages
> (around kf5, plasma, kdepim, ...), each having various and different
> version numbers, and it is quite taxing trying to make heads or tails
> of it all.

Feel free to bring this up with upstreams distributions mailing list.

Just bringing this up here is – again – a waste of energy.

> > And, yes, while I think some improvements in the order packages enter
> > testing, would certainly be nice, I also think that the main purpose of
> > testing is just that: Preparing Debian for release by testing the heck
> > out of it. That it is kind of a rolling distro, is in my eyes just a side
> > effect of it. And I think for a rolling distro unstable is more suitable
> > anyway.
> > 
> > So that is where I will focus my energy: Testing out the new packages
> > while
> > fully understanding that there can be transitional states of breakage that
> > do not even matter for the final stable distribution as it won´t have KF
> > 5.22 packages.
> 
> Fully agreed here, but first you have to be able to identify which are
> the transitional states, otherwise you're just bringing more noise to
> the packagers, as I described above.

Then help to make this possible.

Otherwise its a complaint. Its as easy as that. In my oppinion a complaint is 
usually something that is not intended to create a real change. And thats 
usually exactly the effect of it.

All of this discussion is a huge waste of time unless someone in here chooses 
to *act*. See, we had this before. Every two months an epic discussion here. 
Any real change up to now? *None*.

Just by writing here *neither* the upstream packaging layout *nor* the order 
in which packages enter testing will change even just *one single bit*. That 
said upstream developers thought a lot about the modularization of packages 
and thats the key point of KF 5. Whether its a good idea… might remain to be 
seen, but unless someone at least addresses the issue where people listen that 
can change things, any of this here has *no effect*.

Thank you,
-- 
Martin