Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3B2637BC-EC68-4BC5-85A6-D2700A2381ED@jirutka.cz>
References: <31b20754-2244-780f-8d98-9ed68478db30@bitmessage.ch> <3B2637BC-EC68-4BC5-85A6-D2700A2381ED@jirutka.cz>
From: William Pitcock <nenolod@dereferenced.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 20:16:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+T2pCEuSyQTMgvWf4AKZ7+zs7nDdA+fss5D5DfzHg+aPiXvAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [alpine-devel] KDE Plasma packaging in Alpine
To: Jakub Jirutka <jakub@jirutka.cz>
Cc: Oliver Smith <ollieparanoid@bitmessage.ch>, 
	Alpine-devel <alpine-devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Jakub Jirutka <jakub@jirutka.cz> wrote:
> 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 a=
ports, because it would most likely start a domino effect (adding two varia=
nts even for some/all depending packages). And before someone suggest it, a=
dding 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 o=
verwhelmed and adding more and more desktop packages is a huge maintenance =
load. So I hope that you will also help us with maintenance.

I think that it is a very interesting project.
But they have not yet proven that it is a sustainable project, and we
shouldn't preference projects that have no actual plan to make the
project sustainable.
There has been no progress on things that seem very critical, like
making phone calls, and now the discussion seems to be shifting toward
tablets instead of phones.

> About LTS or non-LTS: I=E2=80=99d definitely vote for non-LTS, the versio=
n needed for postmarketOS.

Adelie will be using LTS branches.
We can upstream those in Alpine, if wanted, or not.
If the pmOS packages are accepted, we will simply continue to use our
own KDE packages.

> 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 i=
nvest more resources to maintain it themselves.

This needs clarification.

Adelie is not backed by any pre-existing company, either.

It is however, something we are looking to run in a sustainable way,
which does mean commercial deals that make sense, because revenue
helps fund the work we are doing in Alpine (we have to pay the bills
after all).
But, the business around Adelie is pre-revenue (kinda need a finished
product and a full business plan first you know), and nobody is being
paid to work on it.
We are still figuring that out.

Only some work on Alpine is sponsored, which relates largely to
packaging required to run the business that you're talking about.
But that money is entirely separate, and that business holds no
financial interest in Adelie.
It may, in the future, use Adelie instead of Alpine, but we may use
Fedora or Debian or ArchLinux in the future on those servers.
Who knows.

Adelie both as a company, and as a project, is definitely *Alpine first*.
We want to be good actors in the Alpine community and provide Alpine
with high quality, sustainable work that brings no new technical debt
with it.
To me, and perhaps I am mistaken, but that seems like the exact
opposite of what pmOS is bringing.
They are bringing more technical debt, as you recognize yourself when
you wrote, "So I hope that you will also help us with maintenance."

Finally: I am not sure why it is the responsibility of Alpine to give
pmOS special treatment.
They are a downstream derivative, like Adelie, and they should play by
the same rules.
If you are having to hope that they stick around, that doesn't seem
like a very confident call to be making.

> postmarketOS needs aarch64 builders, right?

Seems to me they need: builders, mirrors, and skilled developers.

We haven't come forward with our KDE packaging for merge yet, to
ensure that the pmOS crew gets full opportunity for review, but it
exists and is working today in Adelie.
I would ask pmOS these questions:

* Are they willing to support the entire KDE desktop in Alpine?
* Will they fix the bugs?
* Do they actually have the capability to deliver on this?

Everyone knows where we stand, and everyone knows that the people
involved all have a proven track record.
With pmOS, it is not yet known.
I suggest reviewing their packages and seeing if they are something
you are willing to sign off on.

William


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---