Re: RFS: xfce4/4.20+nmu1 [NMU] -- Meta-package for the Xfce Lightweight Desktop Environment
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 2025-07-16 at 16:17 +0100, Peter Blackman wrote:
> On 14/07/2025 20:34, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
> > Right now, this is a strong NACK for the NMU, because of the lack of
> > coordination, especially this late in the freeze.
>
> Noted. I'll close the RFS.
Thanks
>
>
> > Unless I'm mistaken (and feel free to provide more information I might
> > have
> > missed) xfce-polkit is not maintained upstream (last commit on
> > https://github.com/ncopa/xfce-polkit is three years old).
>
> I don't see this as a blocker. Its only 300 lines of C,
> I'm confident I can keep it going.
Honestly, I am. If you think you can keep it going, could you approach the
upstream maintainer and offer help (or take over) there? I think that would be
best to be sure it's actually maintained and in line with the Xfce project.
>
> The only alternative, mate-polkit, has twice as many open issues
> and pull requests upstream than xfce-polkit, and the packaging
> of xfce-polkit is in better shape IMHO.
> mate-polkit is still using cdbs and has no CI on Salsa
Maybe the mate-polkit maintainers would also appreciate some help on the
packaging? On my part I really prefer having people joining to help reduce
issues on the current packages we already have, rather than introducing new
packages (even small ones).
I'm not fan of the accountsservice dependency of mate-polkit (maybe a
Recommends: would be enough) but I'm all for sharing the burden and not
reinventing the wheel, when it's possible.
>
>
> > you could have discussed that on #1090384
> > (before doing the first xfce-polkit upload).
>
> I commented on #1090384 in May, Craig's reply was encouraging.
> Copied the RFS to the mailing list (no response).
Indeed, sorry I totally missed that.
> The upload to unstable was in July.
>
>
> Also you can use merge request on
> > Salsa, that would be easier for us than manually merging the changes after
> > an
> > NMU.
>
> Happy to do that to move this forward.
> Suggest move further discussion on details to #1090384
>
Ack.
- --
Yves-Alexis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAmh36ysACgkQ3rYcyPpX
RFstgQf8DaLalHb+qwRHSwyQ65M6cYKppqnTXoWqbZn+O5Wq+SQsrkdxCuHwrT6s
kywSALoiQEsayi17FyJQPBFDik/NoJ+v1pqBGfGtX5sE7Z6rgITATyHk3zIpa6oD
HWIVenIntmH4YY2sgGXrdtqKS229bx9K6/ALER1noqK6kS34n1s8QSnY3UAbtan4
HFhdpQtZYQp01q+QrhjKJ1EuG80mnP9vW26+zujNwU8ggIUI7ZKz1tyNLY5MKuA2
2zuOEA7yCH21JvhrELPG/7N2bu/Kyvlrxr40cDcLW6WSG4OT+aD8h7UPI4GbTKdD
OTpuyuEPOb7LDKNLacM8dkTwwzMvUw==
=cXRL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: