Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Daniel Campbell <lists@××××××××.us>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 06:27:03
Message-Id: 52033A27.2070103@sporkbox.us
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Gnome Stabilization 3.6 or 3.8 by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
1 On 08/08/2013 01:21 AM, Duncan wrote:
2 > Alex Alexander posted on Thu, 08 Aug 2013 05:51:38 +0300 as excerpted:
3 >
4 >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 2:49 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote:
5 >>
6 >>> On 08/07/2013 09:14 PM, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote:
7 >>>> On Wed, 2013-08-07 at 14:45 +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
8 >>>>>
9 >>>>> Gnome Herd decided to target stablilization of 3.8 [1] which
10 >>>>> requires systemd.
11 >>>>>
12 >>>>> What are the reasons to stable 3.8 and not 3.6, a version w/o this
13 >>>>> restriction, enabling all non systemd users to profit from this
14 >>>>> eye-candy as well.
15 >>>>
16 >>>> To stabilize gnome-3.6, we would need [people willing to do it].
17 >>>> We do not have such people on the gnome team.
18 >>>>
19 >>> Seeing the noise in #gentoo from people getting whacked in the kidney
20 >>> by the systemd sidegrade ... that's a very optimistic decision.
21 >>>
22 >>> It'll cause lots of pain for users that suddenly can't start lvm
23 >>> properly and other nasty landmines
24 >
25 >>> I hope you understand that some of us will be very rude and just
26 >>> suggest to unmerge gnome on all support requests as it now moves
27 >>> outside our support range ...
28 >>>
29 >> Although I understand your frustration, I don't see any other options
30 >> for the Gentoo gnome team. People who don't like this should take their
31 >> complaints upstream.
32 >
33 > That reads to me like resigned acceptance.
34 >
35 > Gentoo/gnome is simply working with what upstream gnome gives them, which
36 > for gentoo/gnome users now means a choice between gnome with systemd and
37 > if no systemd, no gnome either. Upstream decision that gentoo/gnome is
38 > dealing with too.
39 >
40 > ...
41 >
42 > [Those uninterested in gentoo/kde can stop reading here, as the rest of
43 > the post is a complaint about that project not taking the same position.]
44 >
45 > Gentoo/kde users would be so lucky!
46 >
47 > As a gentoo/kde-er, I *WISH* the gentoo/kde team was as similarly willing
48 > to continue support for the options kde upstream *ARE* still providing --
49 > kde4 with the semantic-desktop options turned off. Yes, this does mean
50 > doing without kdepim, but that has been the case for several versions, no
51 > upstream change there for 4.11, at least not for kde's base packages as
52 > necessary to run a kde desktop, yet gentoo carried support for building
53 > kde without semantic-desktop in 4.10, and doesn't in 4.11.
54 >
55 > Meanwhile, while the same build-time options that worked in 4.10 still
56 > work in 4.11 (I know, as I put a lot of work into patching the ebuilds
57 > here when gentoo/kde removed the options despite upstream continuing to
58 > have them), the gentoo/kde project has decided to force the semantic-
59 > desktop option ON for gentooers even where upstream continues to provide
60 > the option to turn it off!
61 >
62 >
63 > None-the-less, I do understand the problem of a gentoo project supporting
64 > an option no devs on the project are actually interested in running.
65 > Testing would be left to users, and quality would suffer a bit as a
66 > result, but I know for a fact that there's users out there DOING that
67 > testing, even with the additional cost of having to maintain ebuild
68 > patches themselves to do it, because I'm one of them! Further, I'm
69 > running 4.11.49.9999 live-branch and was running the betas before the
70 > branch from trunk, so there's at least one user actually doing that
71 > testing early enough to catch a good share of that feature's problems
72 > before they get anywhere close to ~arch, let alone stable.
73 >
74 > Despite, or perhaps /because/ of, all the previous pain kde upstream has
75 > caused its users with the 4.x bump (which unlike the 4.10/4.11 bump was
76 > at LEAST a major version bump) and with kdepim's switch to akonadi
77 > mid-4.x (which unfortunately was NOT a major version bump), this time
78 > there's no indication of upstream kde changing semantic-desktop horses
79 > mid-stream and mid-major-version and forcing it on like that; it's
80 > gentoo/kde that's doing it, pure and simple.
81 >
82 > And I've already posted that regardless of what upstream kde or gentoo/kde
83 > does, after all the trouble I went thru to rid my system of semantic-
84 > desktop earlier in the kde4 series, I'm not ABOUT to enable it again now,
85 > yes indeed, even if that means I unmerge the kde desktop entirely and
86 > switch to something else -- which after all I've already done for major
87 > portions of kde, including switching kmail->claws-mail when kdepim
88 > unfortunately jumped the shark mid-major-version.
89 >
90 >
91 > So as I said, gentoo/kde-ers would be so lucky, if the gentoo/kde project
92 > took the same position gentoo/gnome's taking here, that they support what
93 > upstream offers, that gentoo/gnome's only forcing systemd because
94 > upstream gnome's forcing it. Were that the case, semantic-desktop
95 > wouldn't be forced by gentoo/kde in kde 4.11, where upstream still offers
96 > the same options they did in 4.10, where gentoo/kde offered the option as
97 > well.
98 >
99 > Meanwhile, I guess I know what the kde-sunset users felt like now...
100 > except in that case as well as the gentoo/gnome case but unlike this one,
101 > upstream WAS dropping support, and the gentoo project was simply
102 > following upstream...
103 >
104
105 Wow, that really sucks. I'm not posting this to the ML since I have
106 nothing to offer to their discussion. All this mess with GNOME and KDE
107 makes me happy to run vanilla X with Fluxbox, though. :P Which options
108 have you considered, if Gentoo/KDE doesn't re-enable the option to
109 disable semantic desktop?
110
111 Regards,
112
113 Daniel