The case for a kdelibs 4.8

Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler at
Sat Oct 1 12:27:15 BST 2011


Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> the choice that packagers have is to actually work with us instead of
> against us.

We would very much love to work with you. In fact, this is why I submitted 
my patches to KDE ReviewBoard before even getting them into Rawhide. I 
really WANT these to be upstream. Fedora doesn't like carrying downstream 
patches as a general principle.

However, working with you is only possible if you are also interested in 
working with us, which implies listening to our needs, concerns and wishes. 
By closing down the branch where our current development is necessarily 
focused on since that's what we will be shipping in the near future, you're 
already starting down the wrong road.

For those Plasma PackageKit features, sure, they're not strictly required, 
which is why we got away without them until now. But to our users, they mean 
that installing a widget through "download new widgets…" will actually 
install the required dependencies, so the widget they downloaded will 
actually WORK. What, to us developers, is a feature, actually fixes a bug 
from a user's perspective. We, the distributions, interact directly with 
users, and so are receptive to their needs, concerns and wishes, and tend to 
base ours on them.

And finally, I strongly doubt that my features are the only post-4.7 kdelibs 
features running into the freeze. (In fact, what's now going on with 
kactivities and nepomuk proves quite the opposite.)

        Kevin Kofler

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list