Mail archive
alpine-devel

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

From: Oliver Smith <ollieparanoid_at_bitmessage.ch>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:47:00 +0000

Hi,

> 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.

Yes, that would be the plan! craftyguy even volunteered to take the path of becoming an Alpine developer, and kaniini offered to be his mentor (in fact, to anyone from postmarketOS who wants to become an Alpine developer).

> As I know, postmarketOS is purely OSS project not backed by any company

True.

> postmarketOS needs aarch64 builders, right?

Binary packages for x86_64, armhf and aarch64 actually (I've learned, that not all aarch64 builders can produce armhf packages).

PS: Right now we only have packaged plasma mobile related components from KDE plasma. AFAIK we would need a few more components to get the full desktop working.

Oliver


Jakub Jirutka:
> 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
> ---
>
>



---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help_at_lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Received on Thu Oct 26 2017 - 21:47:00 GMT