Plasma Mobile on the Librem 5 (please ignore previous two mails)

[Jonathan Riddell]

On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 10:56:12PM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote:
> > And honestly I don't think it's something the Debian team cares about: it's
> > much more important to have the "perfect" package.
> 
> Yes, that is required for getting things into the distribution. The
> copyright analysis must be done and be good to even get into Debian,
> which is something Neon was lacking last time I checked.

There's nobody much watching over neon's copyright analysis so I often
don't spend much time writing long copyright files. It's more
important to me that the code KDE releases has clear and valid
licences and I frequently make changes in KDE directly when it doesn't,
as well as ensuring KDE projects actually make releases so they can
get picked up by distros and that those releases follow a licence
policy and best release practice plus defining those policies and best
practice.

> The Kubuntu
> packaging oftentimes was mediocre too (bumping epochs without reason
> comes to my mind, even for new packages) - *but* that is no reason to
> take the Neon packaging, fix the problems and submit the changes back
> to Neon and the package to Debian. That workflow would actually help
> both projects and reduce work for Debian.

I'm a bit lost here. epochs are typically set to keep package sets
consistent with each other, you can blame stephan coolo for packaging
KDE in debian in the 1990s. I'd love to have more sharing between
kubuntu, neon and Debian. The neon packaging automatically merges in
debian packaging for frameworks and makes it easy for everything else
so I merge whenever there's a benefit.

> That got me curious, and I diff'ed the Neon vs. Debian packaging.
> Surprisingly, the packaging is completely disjoint. Sometimes, Debian
> is better, sometimes Neon is. And it looks like Neon does take care of
> the copyright file afterall, in some packages it is even *better* than
> in Debian.

Why thank you, I think :)

We like to automate things in neon so the automated QA tools will moan
about some thing which get fixed. It would be great if Debian and/or
kubuntu would merge these back but I suspect it doesn't happen much.

Stuff gets packaged on different schedules of course so updates happen at different times.

> Also, fun bits happen, for example Debian updated your copyright in
> the kwin package, Neon forgot to do that, but instead added other
> copyright holders Debian missed. Also, Neon adds
> "KF5IdleTimeKWinWaylandPrivatePlugin.so" to the kwin-common package,
> while in Debian it's in kwin-wayland (where it belongs, I guess?).
> Debian also builds proper debugsymbols using the dbgsym support in
> Debian, while Neon is using legacy stuff.

Thanks for your bug reports, we also accept patches or bugs on
bugs.kde.org or KDE devs can commit directly :)

> > Just my 2 cents as someone who has been annoyed by the lack of collaboration
> > between Kubuntu and Debian for years

lo siento

> Anyway, this is something PureOS and Purism could actually resolve or
> help resolving (in the ideal case directly on Debian, in the worst
> case only for PureOS).

Doing merges between neon/kubuntu/debian would be super awesome

Jonathan