Mail archive
alpine-devel

Re: [alpine-devel] KDE Plasma packaging in Alpine

From: Jakub Jirutka <jakub_at_jirutka.cz>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 23:17:18 +0200

Hi,

I guess that there will be many packages depending on KDE Frameworks Tier 1, right? If so, then I’m against including multiple versions in aports, because it would most likely start a domino effect (adding two variants even for some/all depending packages). And before someone suggest it, adding LTS to community and latest only to testing is NOT a solution, it’d be even worse.

I’m very glad that there’s someone trying to bring clean Linux distribution to mobile phones. However, we’re already quite overwhelmed and adding more and more desktop packages is a huge maintenance load. So I hope that you will also help us with maintenance.

About LTS or non-LTS: I’d definitely vote for non-LTS, the version needed for postmarketOS. As I know, postmarketOS is purely OSS project not backed by any company; Adélie is backed by a company in advertisement business, so they can invest more resources to maintain it themselves.

postmarketOS needs aarch64 builders, right?

Jakub

> On 26. Oct 2017, at 20:57, Oliver Smith <ollieparanoid_at_bitmessage.ch> wrote:
>
> Dear alpine-devel,
>
> two derivatives of Alpine Linux, Adélie and postmarketOS, are working on
> getting KDE Plasma upstreamed for Alpine. From the discussions in
> #alpine-devel, it seems clear that Alpine developers are not against
> including it and both groups are currently working together on
> upstreaming KDE Frameworks Tier 1[1] (which is basically the first group
> of packages, that makes sense to be upstreamed before the next group
> etc.).
>
> However, Adélie needs the LTS version (which makes sense to ship a
> stable experience for desktop users), while postmarketOS needs the
> latest stable (because plasma mobile[2] is still in development and
> depends on that). For some context, I'm involved in the latter project.
>
> This topic came up in #alpine-devel yesterday, and we were told, that we
> should take this to the mailing list to get more opinions from Alpine
> developers, especially from ncopa.
>
> The question is: Does it make sense for Alpine to ship both versions?
>
> In theory we could implement this by shipping the latest greatest
> packages with a "-current" suffix. But then again, KDE Plasma is not
> that small and means quite a lot of maintenance effort. The derivatives
> would maintain the packages, but for a package or update to land in
> Alpine, Alpine devs need to review and approve them, so this means
> additional work for Alpine, too.
>
> In case the answer to the question above is "no, let's do LTS only!",
> kaniini suggested yesterday, that it could be possible to use Alpine's
> building infrastructure to provide builds for the "-current" versions as
> unsupported packages. I would also be very interested in opinions
> regarding that statement. (Related alpine-infra post[3].)
>
> Thanks for reading!
> Oliver Smith
>
> [1]: https://github.com/alpinelinux/aports/pull/2495
> [2]: https://plasma-mobile.org/
> [3]: https://lists.alpinelinux.org/alpine-infra/0184.html
>
>
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe: alpine-devel+unsubscribe_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
> Help: alpine-devel+help_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
> ---
>



---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Received on Thu Oct 26 2017 - 23:17:18 GMT