No more release schedules.

Modestas Vainius modax at
Fri Jun 10 11:39:38 CEST 2011


On penktadienis 10 Birželis 2011 11:49:47 Eric Hameleers wrote:

> Again, monolithic tarballs or not, this is not the topic. Coordinating
> the release process for all the individual submodules is what is going
> to make or break KDE's acceptance. Do I have to remind you of the
> consequences of the X.Org release process? For the past years, ever
> since X.Org went modular, there has not been a single distro that was
> able to deliver a consistently working X desktop.

Oh yes. And in the past, with XFree86 or monolithic Xorg X was stable as a 
rock? That's definitely not true. In my opinion, it was a nightmare (esp. to 
package). Actually, things improved when Xorg was split because it became 
possible to get (upstream approved) bugfixes to the users more quickly. Yet 
I'm not saying that lack of coordination among Xorg modules help things. It 
surely *does not*.

> Why do you think
> Wayland gets so much attention? There is total chaos in the release
> process for X.Org, individual submodule maintainers decide largely
> among themselves what dependencies and what software versions they
> require for their releases. As a result, packaging X.Org is not a
> pleasant and reqarding experience. With the proposal under discussion,
> I predict that KDE is going to foot itself firmly on the same
> slippery slope.

I don't think that Wayland gets so much attention mainly because of this. Like 
any very old project, Xorg has much legacy code, which makes codebase very 
huge and hard to understand, some decisions of the past made development very 
complicated etc. So sometimes it is easier to rewrite everything from scratch 
applying modern concepts and techniques.

> > On penktadienis 10 Birželis 2011 00:09:16 Eric Hameleers wrote:
> > > This now, is exactly what I was afraid for when I voiced my concern
> > > about the break-up of this relatively small collection of coherent
> > > source tarballs we are used to work with, into a fragmented and
> > > potentially disconnected set of individual small (project-oriented)
> > > source tarballs. This would mean, KDE as an integrated software
> > > collection is dissolving into a loose collection of software perhaps
> > > not even branded "KDE" anymore.

> > On penktadienis 10 Bir?elis 2011 00:09:16 Eric Hameleers wrote:
> > What do small tarballs have to do with this disintegration? I do
> > understand that you dislike small well-split tarballs but, seriously,
> > don't blame everything on them. It's only a different way how tarballs
> > are generated, it has nothing to do with integration or testing.
> Forget about my earlier dislike of splitting into smaller tarballs for
> a moment - that issue has nothing to do with this dicscussion at hand.
> If KDE release team decides to stop releasing monolithic tarballs, I
> will find a way to cope with it - there is more work involved but
> essentially the build and packaging process will only have to change
> once. For as long as the release process stays co-ordinated and all
> sources are released in unison, so that I know what I am packaging.
[... snip ...]
> So forget about monolithic tarballs please. It is clouding the issue.

It was not me who brought monolithic vs. split tarballs up here. So of course 
I will forget them in this context because I agree they have nothing to do 
with the topic of this thread. Glad to see misunderstandings cleared up.

Modestas Vainius <modax at>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : 

More information about the release-team mailing list