On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 9:51 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio@serjux.com> wrote:

On Thu, 2024-02-08 at 20:43 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 12:33 PM Sérgio Basto <sergio@serjux.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2024-02-07 at 16:03 +0100, Marc Deop i Argemí wrote:
> > > We are not banning nor deleting anything. We are not _supporting_
> > > it.
> >
> >
> > you are removing X11 from the builds deliberately , when
> > many people , members of Fedora on devel mailing list, express that
> > they want have X11 , in fact we have many people that defend keep
> > X11 .
>
> One thing that seems to be overlooked in many of the posts on this
> thread:
>
> Nobody can *force* the KDE Plasma maintainers to do *anything*, just
> like nobody can force *any* packager to do anything.

nobody can force me use wayland , we volunteer maintain KDE Plasma X11
, why do you think, we want force someone to do anything ? they are
force us do a new packages, they remove X11 without consensus, they can
leave the packages alone .

> Fedora a
> volunteer-run project. We're mostly doing this "for fun" (or at
> least,
> some definition of "fun"). So if the KDE Plasma maintainers / the KDE
> SIG decides that they do not want to keep supporting the Plasma / X11
> session, that is their choice. However, I am not sure whether I like
> it or not that there's an ongoing effort to add this functionality
> back with separate packages.
>
> For me, the only acceptable way to do this would be in a way that
> does
> in no way make maintaining the Plasma / Wayland packages more
> difficult or burdensome, since the original intent of dropping the
> Plasma / X11 session was to *lower* the maintenance burden.

It is a false excuse and not true, is not more difficult nor
burdensome, we had many burdensome with the default be wayland and
hundreds of bugs opened and never fixed with crashes only on wayland
session .

> Adding
> back the Plasma / X11 session with separate packages might cause
> additional overhead for the KDE SIG (for example, needing to update
> kwin-x11 whenever there is a kwin update).

is the opposite, KDE SIG are causing additional overhead to who want
use X11 and the package maintainer forcing use of wayland and why does
the will of KDE SIG have to prevail?

I also maintain many KDE packages and I had a overhead with wayland
crashes

> That would be the "usual"
> way to handle this according to Fedora policies.
>

The usual is, if someone want maintain the package , they can maintain
it, no one complains about an hypothetical burden

> However, that would be counter to the original purpose of dropping
> the
> functionality from the packages maintained by the KDE SIG. But again,
> nobody can *force* package maintainers to support something they
> don't
> want to support.

They don't have support X11 , they have the work of keep the removal of
X11 in their packages .

Other thing that KDE SIG misses , is how testing , let says, as usual,
some app crash , and we ask have you wayland session or X11 session, if
you have wayland try X11 , if it runs at X11 and crash on wayland ,
this fact can help find the problem and not the opposite .

also in kde-wayland you can run in x11 envoirment with env
QT_QPA_PLATFORM=xcb

So just thinking removing this part of the functionalities on KDE ,
IMHO is lack of knowledge of graphics and bad for Fedora. IMHO the
future is have both technologies and not replace it

Is very sad read that some people think in remove it and force people
use an technology that they think that don't have some important
features and issues in his opinions , is less important than false
argumentation , that will give burden . when they are burned to who
want use X11

> So in this case, I think it would be good to have
> something like a clarification to the Updates Policy (and / or other
> policies, as necessary) for this case to resolve the contradiction -
> something like "updates for KDE Plasma packages are not required to
> be
> coordinated with packages for the Plasma / X11 session".
>
> I'm also unsure how handling bug reports would best work in this
> situation. People *will* report bugs against the wrong components,
> causing additional work for the KDE SIG. (Hell, I'm getting bug
> reports filed against elementary / Pantheon packages, and there's not
> even a usable Pantheon session in Fedora yet!)
>
> Fabio
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

--
Sérgio M. B.
--

I am not gonna reply to all of that because all we are doing at this point is repeating the same thing. But we are NOT stopping you from using x11. You can either build it yourself and put it on a copr (it’s not like neal is using voodoo in his copr), use the copr we provide or …

With the change proposal, fedora (as a distro) the kde sig has proposed to move away from packaging x11 for plasma 6, and by accepting the proposal, fedora (as an entity) agreed.

Fedora has a reputation of moving forwards, not going backwards.

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue