gmane.linux.ubuntu.devel.kubuntu

Re: Kubuntu Council Status/Elections

Clay Weber — 2012-05-25T22:02:09

Done.

Clay Weber

------Original Message------
From: Scott Kitterman <ubuntu< at >kitterman.com>
To: <kubuntu-devel< at >lists.ubuntu.com>
Date: Friday, May 25, 2012 3:46:07 PM GMT-0400
Subject: Kubuntu Council Status/Elections

Getting elections set up has taken longer than we thought, so rather than lose 
half the council membership this week, the KC has decided the existing members 
whose terms are about to expire should be extended three weeks to give time to 
prepare an election.

People who've considered running for Kubuntu Council in the past should be 
considering it again.  It is mosts certainly not just for developers.  Any 
Kubuntu member is eligible to run.

Scott K

P.S. On that note, I'd appreciate it if someone who's subscribed to the user 
list would forward this there.

Re: Kubuntu Council Elections 2012

Scott Kitterman — 2012-05-25T21:15:46

...
...
I nominate me.

Scott K

Kubuntu Council Elections 2012

Harald Sitter — 2012-05-25T20:52:06

The Kubuntu Council is a group of 6 Kubuntu Members who get to vote on
membership of Kubuntu Members and occasionally other decisions regarding
Kubuntu.

Half the council is nearing the end of their 2 year appointment so we need
to hold elections for the open positions to the council.  This could be
you! If you are a Kubuntu Member and are willing to turn up to Kubuntu
meetings as much as possible for the next couple of years do consider
putting your name forward.

We are particularly encouraging non-developers to put their name forward,
as we feel that a less development focused council is beneficial for
the Kubuntu community.

To put your name forward make sure you update your wiki page and then post
to this list.

To nominate someone else also write to this list. It might be a good idea
to first have a chat with the affected person. Please note that everyone
who was nominated by someone else will have to verify their nomination.

Closing date for nominations is June 9 at 23:59 UTC.

The poll will start on

Re: Kubuntu Council Status/Elections

Harald Sitter — 2012-05-25T19:50:32

Official announcement to follow soon(tm)

HS

Kubuntu Council Status/Elections

Scott Kitterman — 2012-05-25T19:46:07

Getting elections set up has taken longer than we thought, so rather than lose 
half the council membership this week, the KC has decided the existing members 
whose terms are about to expire should be extended three weeks to give time to 
prepare an election.

People who've considered running for Kubuntu Council in the past should be 
considering it again.  It is mosts certainly not just for developers.  Any 
Kubuntu member is eligible to run.

Scott K

P.S. On that note, I'd appreciate it if someone who's subscribed to the user 
list would forward this there.

Re: Overview of Jockey replacement; options for Kubuntu?

Jussi Schultink — 2012-05-25T19:28:43

Hi all

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Jonathan Thomas <echidnaman< at >gmail.com> wrote:

This is definately my preferred solution - make it fit with other KDE
items and ways of doing things as much as possible. Also, if the
module can be written so that it would support other backends it
perhaps even could be forwarded upstream, which would be ideal.

Hope my 2c are useful

Jussi

Re: SRU xsettings-kde

Jonathan Thomas — 2012-05-25T16:24:30

Steve Langasek already took care of this. Verification is done and the
SRU is pending a copy to -updates shortly. :)

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Michal Zajac <quintasan< at >kubuntu.org> wrote:

Re: SRU xsettings-kde

Michal Zajac — 2012-05-25T15:46:22

Assign me to it please, will get to it tomorrow.
24 maj 2012 22:44, "Harald Sitter" <apachelogger< at >ubuntu.com> napisał(a):

Re: Overview of Jockey replacement; options for Kubuntu?

Jonathan Thomas — 2012-05-25T13:09:59

Hello,

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:12 AM, Martin Pitt <martin.pitt< at >ubuntu.com> wrote:

I think that we'd rather not use PackageKit (for Kubuntu at least). We
already have python-apt and QApt as part of the default Kubuntu
install, so having a third apt worker implementation would be
undesirable. Could the new jockey communicate with a "what
provides-helper" written with libqapt that uses DBus for
communication, and use the qaptworker for running installs if I were
to implement such a helper?


This could work, although it would (obviously) require some additional
GUI work on the KDE side of things. Though if we're already going to
have to write additional GUI...

... then I think it would be beneficial to write a KConfig Module so
that it could be integrated as a sub-page of the "Display and Monitor"
page in KDE's System Settings. I attempted to write a Jockey frontend
for this a few years back, but was foiled due to the multithreading in
jockey not playing nice with the KDE plugin apis.


This is undesirable

Overview of Jockey replacement; options for Kubuntu?

Martin Pitt — 2012-05-25T09:12:05

Hello all,

Also sending this to kubuntu-devel< at >, but as I'm not a subscriber
someone needs to moderate; CC'ing Scott and Harald directly.

As discussed at UDS and in [1] we want to dramatically simplify the
machinery for installing extra drivers (NVidia, bcmwl, and friends).
Jockey was originally designed to do a lot more than we are using it
for, and be compatible with other distros as well (I had it working on
Fedora 14 back then, when we discussed it in the Linux Foundation
driver backports workgroup). But we don't use it to that extent, other
distros have moved into a different direction, and thus it has way too
much code and bugs. So Ubuntu will drop it and replace with with
something much simpler and robust, and also use upstream friendly APIs
(PackageKit).

The logic of detecting drivers and providing PackageKit/aptdaemon
plugins is now in the ubuntu-drivers-common package (formerly known
as "nvidia-common"). This now mostly makes PackageKit/aptdaemon able
to answer a "WhatProvides(MODALIAS, pci:s0000

[Blueprint topic-quantal-flavor-kubuntu] Kubuntu Quantal PLans

Kate Stewart — 2012-05-24T22:49:39

Blueprint changed by Kate Stewart:

    Approver: Kate Stewart => Kubuntu Council

SRU xsettings-kde

Harald Sitter — 2012-05-24T20:43:57

Someone please make
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/xsettings-kde/+bug/1002811
so that it meets with ludicrous requirements. I will not. Kthxbai.

Re: Kubuntu and main/universe

Scott Kitterman — 2012-05-23T13:11:21

wrote:

We could split the seeds into a Main/on the $ISO and a Universe/on the $ISO 
seeds.  That would complicate the decision making about what needs to go in 
Main considerably if our images are built to include Universe.  Technically 
it's feasible, but I don't think there's another case of an set of packages 
split this way.  Edubuntu has a bunch of stuff in Main, but that's only because 
of overlap between it's packages and Gnome/KDE.

Scott K

Re: Kubuntu and main/universe

Harald Sitter — 2012-05-23T13:06:03

Does it have to be either or? Couldn't we mixed seed?
i.e. have most of our stuff in main, and when necessary demote/keep
packages in universe to accommodate the build dep issue highlighted

FWIW, having to compromise on available features because a build dep
was not worth getting it into main (or simply does not qualify for
legal reasons) always annoyed me.

HS

Re: Kubuntu and main/universe

Scott Kitterman — 2012-05-23T12:57:48

...
...

This is a good point that I forgot to write.  My preference to stay in Main is 
not strong as I see the benefits of moving, but I would still prefer to stay in 
Main if we can.

Scott K

Re: Kubuntu and main/universe

Scott Kitterman — 2012-05-23T12:55:23

Which, depending on what 'supported' means is accurate (see below).


This is the biggest plus associated with moving to Universe, IMO.  The 
infrastructure is fragile enough that I don't think it's particularly more 
work to unwind it than keep it.  Since upstream KDE already ships per language 
translations the primary advantage with the LP language system isn't 
applicable to KDE.


I suspect we've hit those already, so it's not a major driver.

The benefits to staying in Main, as I see it:

 - Canonical security team support (if they aren't willing to support, then I 
think we're pretty much by definition out of Main)

 - Some PR advantage

 - Limited set of non-Kubuntuish uploaders.  There are some people with MOTU 
upload rights that I wouldn't want going anywhere near Kubuntu packages and so 
I see it as a positive feature that they can't.  The kubuntu-dev process is 
responsive enough that it's easier for someone working on Kubuntu to get that 
then MOTU, so in terms of Kubuntu related upload rights

Re: Kubuntu and main/universe

Jonathan Thomas — 2012-05-23T12:44:37

Hi Colin,

I regret being unable to attend UDS in person, but I hope you had a
good time and aren't suffering from the Ubuflu. :)

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Colin Watson <cjwatson< at >ubuntu.com> wrote:

I think moving from main would be beneficial to us. Currently, there
are several Kubuntu packages with optional build-dependencies on
universe components providing extra functionality that we cannot build
against. In addition to us missing out on a few nice features, it also
makes packaging diffs with Debian just a bit larger, which is
undesirable. In my experience, I don't think there's any protest
amongst the Kubuntu team about whether or not a move from main ->
universe is desirable, but I'll let them speak for themselves. ;-)


Currently all Muon is doing is running a script based on
update-manager's MetaReleaseCore class to check for distribution
updates, and offering to launch the Qt distribution upgrade frontend
to update-manager if a new release is available. This would mean that
all the Kubuntu p

Kubuntu and main/universe

Colin Watson — 2012-05-23T11:49:54

Hi Kubuntu folks,

At this UDS, the old "archive reorg" topic came up again
(https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ArchiveReorganisation for those unfamiliar with
it; this page also contains some background for some of the Ubuntu
archive jargon I've inevitably ended up using in this post), and I had a
side discussion with Jonathan about a Kubuntu-related question arising
from it.

Ultimately, I still do plan to move all free software in the archive to
a single consolidated "main" component and express who supports what in
ways that are rather more flexible than (effectively) moving files
around in the pool; but it's clear at this point that I'm only going to
be able to lay the groundwork for that this cycle, not actually do it.
In advance of that, though, my question is as follows: is being in main
actually much more than an obstruction to Kubuntu development these
days?

Up to now, the packages that make up Kubuntu - at least the images you
ship - have been in main at least in part because Canonical was offering
some lev

[greenrd< at >gmail.com: Bug report: Mailing list reject message isunfriendly]

Jonathan Riddell — 2012-05-23T11:23:00

----- Forwarded message from Robin Green <greenrd< at >gmail.com> -----

Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 12:19:59 +0100
Subject: Bug report: Mailing list reject message is unfriendly
From: Robin Green <greenrd< at >gmail.com>
To: kubuntu-devel-owner< at >lists.ubuntu.com
Sender: mailman-bounces< at >lists.ubuntu.com

   I am very annoyed because kcrashhandler told me to report a bug in
   apport-kde by email to kubuntu-devel< at >lists.ubuntu.com. But YOU CAN'T
   because YOU GET THE MESSAGE "You are not allowed to post to this mailing
   list, and your message has
   been automatically rejected. "
   This is not at all user-friendly.
   This was the end of a long list of crashes and incorrect behaviours that I
   ran into while trying to report a bug. The user experience needs to be
   improved.

[Blueprint topic-quantal-flavor-kubuntu] Kubuntu Quantal PLans

Kate Stewart — 2012-05-23T02:14:26

Blueprint changed by Kate Stewart:

    Definition Status: Drafting => Approved

[Blueprint topic-quantal-flavor-kubuntu] Kubuntu Quantal PLans

Kate Stewart — 2012-05-23T02:14:15

Blueprint changed by Kate Stewart:

    Definition Status: New => Drafting