Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Precedence: list
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] KDE Plasma packaging in Alpine
From: Jakub Jirutka <jakub@jirutka.cz>
In-Reply-To: <31b20754-2244-780f-8d98-9ed68478db30@bitmessage.ch>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 23:17:18 +0200
Cc: Alpine-devel <alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3B2637BC-EC68-4BC5-85A6-D2700A2381ED@jirutka.cz>
References: <31b20754-2244-780f-8d98-9ed68478db30@bitmessage.ch>
To: Oliver Smith <ollieparanoid@bitmessage.ch>

Hi,

I guess that there will be many packages depending on KDE Frameworks =
Tier 1, right? If so, then I=E2=80=99m 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=E2=80=99d be even worse.

I=E2=80=99m very glad that there=E2=80=99s someone trying to bring clean =
Linux distribution to mobile phones. However, we=E2=80=99re 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=E2=80=99d definitely vote for non-LTS, the =
version needed for postmarketOS. As I know, postmarketOS is purely OSS =
project not backed by any company; Ad=C3=A9lie 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@bitmessage.ch> =
wrote:
>=20
> Dear alpine-devel,
>=20
> two derivatives of Alpine Linux, Ad=C3=A9lie and postmarketOS, are =
working on
> getting KDE Plasma upstreamed for Alpine. =46rom 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.).
>=20
> However, Ad=C3=A9lie 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> The question is: Does it make sense for Alpine to ship both versions?
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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].)
>=20
> Thanks for reading!
> Oliver Smith
>=20
> [1]: https://github.com/alpinelinux/aports/pull/2495
> [2]: https://plasma-mobile.org/
> [3]: https://lists.alpinelinux.org/alpine-infra/0184.html
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ---
> Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
> Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
> ---
>=20



---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---