14:05:06 <rdieter> #startmeeting kde-sig -- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Meetings/2010-10-26
14:05:06 <zodbot> Meeting started Tue Oct 26 14:05:06 2010 UTC.  The chair is rdieter. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
14:05:06 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
14:05:13 <rdieter> #topic roll call
14:05:15 <rdieter> who'
14:05:17 <rdieter> is present today?
14:05:25 * thomasj is present
14:05:27 <Kevin_Kofler> Present.
14:05:39 <jreznik> present
14:06:10 * rnovacek here
14:06:21 * ltinkl here
14:07:30 <rdieter> #chair thomasj Kevin_Kofler jreznik rnovacek ltinkl
14:07:30 <zodbot> Current chairs: Kevin_Kofler jreznik ltinkl rdieter rnovacek thomasj
14:07:39 <rdieter> #info thomasj Kevin_Kofler jreznik rnovacek ltinkl present
14:08:06 <rdieter> #topic kde-4.5.2/f13 status
14:08:17 <rdieter> builds done, queue'd for updates-testing
14:08:23 <thomasj> woooo
14:08:38 <rdieter> it's all in kde-testing repo too (along with the unofficial kde-4.5.2/f12 builds)
14:08:44 <Kevin_Kofler> Now we're just waiting for Qt 4.7.1 to push that too.
14:09:04 <rdieter> hopefully soon, yeah.
14:09:14 <thomasj> Why not push 4.7.0 first. We need time to test 4.7.1?
14:09:24 <Kevin_Kofler> We'd need time to test 4.7.0 too.
14:09:28 <Kevin_Kofler> 4.7.1 has fewer bugs.
14:09:33 <Kevin_Kofler> (hopefully)
14:09:39 <thomasj> $.7.0 is oooold on my box :)
14:09:45 <thomasj> ops4.7.0
14:09:47 <jreznik> there are some objections agains shipping qt 4.7 but no real arguments
14:10:02 <Kevin_Kofler> jreznik: objections > /dev/null :-)
14:10:29 <rdieter> we'll obviously have to weight the pros/cons here
14:10:46 <thomasj> right
14:10:47 <jreznik> Kevin_Kofler: I don't like /dev/null but I'd like to hear real arguments against from qt maintainers - so it's clear for me
14:11:08 <jreznik> because of qtwebkit I'm +1
14:11:29 <jreznik> without I wouldn't see so many pros there
14:11:38 * rdieter thinks that will be a major factor in the decision
14:12:10 <Kevin_Kofler> I'm also +1, I don't see anything wrong with pushing 4.7, it allows working with KDE 4.6 trunk too, and other stuff will probably also start requiring 4.7.
14:12:24 <thomasj> rekonq for example
14:12:43 <Kevin_Kofler> Right, all the QtWebKit-using stuff probably already requires 4.7 or will soon.
14:12:56 <Kevin_Kofler> And in any case it'll work better with it.
14:12:58 <ltinkl> +1 from me too, I need it to compile KDE 4.6 in parallel to 4.5 RPMs
14:13:08 <rdieter> sure, I think we're all largely on the same page here... nothing new.
14:13:18 <rdieter> can we move on?
14:13:21 <ltinkl> the Webkit argument is also a strong +1 from me
14:13:32 <Kevin_Kofler> I'd also expect Qt Creator to start requiring 4.7 soon if it doesn't already, they're very aggressively following Qt versions.
14:14:16 <rdieter> #info qt-4.7.x for f13 decision weighed heavily by qtwebkit maintainance
14:14:54 <rdieter> Kevin_Kofler: newer qt-creator does indeed require 4.7
14:15:38 <thomasj> So if we wan't to continue to fit developers as well, we should push Qt-4.7.x ASAP :)
14:15:55 <Kevin_Kofler> Rumors are 4.7.1 is being released today.
14:16:04 <Kevin_Kofler> We should start getting that into updates-testing ASAP.
14:16:41 <rdieter> f14 anyway, I'd rather wait for f13/kde452 stuff to land in stable before even thinking about doing it there too
14:16:50 <Kevin_Kofler> I don't see why.
14:17:00 <rdieter> (too many moving pieces, if something breaks, it'll make it just that much harder to debug)
14:17:01 <Kevin_Kofler> We're wasting time needlessly.
14:18:29 <rdieter> #topic open discussion
14:18:41 <thomasj> I'm honestly for pushing it together as well.
14:18:44 <rdieter> well, kde-4.5.2/f13 was all I had on the agenda, anything else to discuss today?
14:19:19 <nucleo> .bug 644887
14:19:20 <zodbot> nucleo: Bug 644887 Konqueror crashes when js closes the window - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=644887
14:19:36 <thomasj> Heh..
14:19:44 <nucleo> is there problems with fixing of this bug?
14:19:53 <jreznik> it's fixed upstream
14:20:07 <jreznik> so it's possible to backport to our packages
14:20:18 <rdieter> yeah, just noone's done it yet.
14:20:30 <thomasj> Reminds me that Thomas McGuire once said, KDEPim has over 3000 open bugs, only konqueror is worse :D
14:20:43 <rdieter> nucleo: would you be interested in patching konq-plugins in git?
14:20:56 <rdieter> (unless someone else volunteers...)
14:21:06 <rdieter> and I can do it eventually, just been busy busy
14:21:18 <thomasj> I could do it as well, i guess
14:21:18 <nucleo> rdieter: I can, but need to approve acl
14:21:22 <rdieter> nucleo: I'd be happy to grant acls, sure.
14:21:55 <nucleo> so I wll fix it
14:22:17 <thomasj> cool
14:22:21 <rdieter> #info nucleo to apply for konq-plugins acl's, and help apply patch to fix bug #644887
14:23:25 <rdieter> nucleo: thanks! (and sorry for the delay)
14:23:27 <nucleo> and by the way may be I need acl for kdenetwork because it depends on libktorrent so may be needed rebuild when ktorrent 4.1 released
14:24:24 <nucleo> can I request acl for kdenetwork?
14:24:27 <rdieter> nucleo: will there be an abi/soname bump?  or just rebuilding to be paranoid? :)
14:24:49 <nucleo> will bessoname  bump in libktorrent 1.1
14:24:54 <rdieter> but otherwise, I'm ok with that too, let's discuss it first
14:24:56 <Kevin_Kofler> Oh, I have another thing to discuss: What do we do with KPackageKit? Upstream changed it in 0.6.2 to install applications instead of packages. :-(
14:25:01 <Kevin_Kofler> This means 2 things:
14:25:12 <rdieter> proposal: grant nucleo kdenetwork acl's
14:25:20 <Kevin_Kofler> 1. You can't currently install anything at all on Fedora, because we don't have PK app-install support in the backend yet.
14:25:39 <Kevin_Kofler> 2. Even when that's fixed, it still doesn't fulfill the usecases it fulfilled up to 0.6.1.
14:25:39 <rdieter> Kevin_Kofler: SMParrish was going to discuss that with upstream
14:25:55 <ltinkl> Kevin_Kofler: you can't search and install by package name?
14:26:05 <ltinkl> not every package contains an application...
14:26:09 <Kevin_Kofler> ltinkl: No, the search also works only on applications now.
14:26:17 <Kevin_Kofler> They really need to readd support for installing packages or we need to fork it. :-/
14:26:20 <jreznik> I can ask drf__ what's the current status of shaman... I was going to import it to Fedora but it was really pre-alpha quality with bad PK support that time
14:26:22 <ltinkl> broken crap
14:26:25 <Kevin_Kofler> (But who's got the time to work on a fork? :-( )
14:26:41 <ltinkl> what about libraries, fonts, docu, etc?
14:26:46 <Kevin_Kofler> ltinkl: +1
14:26:50 <Kevin_Kofler> That's exactly my point.
14:26:56 <Kevin_Kofler> BTW, the next version will be called "Apper".
14:26:58 <rdieter> one topic at a time please... :)  (unless there's no objection to nucleo's kdenetwork acls?)
14:27:06 <Kevin_Kofler> rdieter: No objections here.
14:27:16 <ltinkl> rdieter: no objections of course :)
14:27:20 <thomasj> Same here
14:27:21 <jreznik> rdieter: no problems here
14:27:37 <rdieter> #agreed nucleo kdenetwork acls approved
14:27:43 <nucleo> thanks
14:27:48 <rdieter> nucleo: apply away.
14:28:11 <rdieter> #topic KPackageKit-0.6.2+ , UI changes, app-install, etc....
14:28:48 <rdieter> there's a lot of uncertaintly here, probably best to wait until we hear back from SMParrish.
14:29:26 <rdieter> but making such a major change in a minor release... is not good.
14:29:28 <rdieter> imo
14:29:45 <Kevin_Kofler> 0.6.2 isn't really a minor release.
14:29:53 <Kevin_Kofler> It also bumps the PackageKit requirement to above what's in F13.
14:30:02 <rdieter> (I suspect it had some to do with rushing in changes for kubuntu)
14:30:12 <Kevin_Kofler> And there are major changes in the UI (again!).
14:30:20 <thomasj> ugh
14:30:32 <Kevin_Kofler> ("0.6.1" was also not a minor release at all.)
14:31:17 <Kevin_Kofler> I think we all agree to skip 0.6.2.
14:31:21 <rdieter> the up'd requirements, are largely pk-qt bindings fixes and api additions
14:31:31 <ltinkl> ye, we have no choice anyway
14:31:44 <Kevin_Kofler> But if we can't convince upstream to (re)add support for installing individual packages, we'll have to fork it.
14:31:45 <ltinkl> I still wonder how it handles the non-app packages
14:32:03 <Kevin_Kofler> (Or patch it if it can be done in a reasonable way.)
14:32:13 <Kevin_Kofler> Sadly, I haven't looked at how much would have to be changed there.
14:32:20 <Kevin_Kofler> I can have a look if I find the time.
14:32:41 <Kevin_Kofler> I'm sceptical that I can take up the fork all alone though, I already have way too many projects.
14:33:39 <jreznik> Kevin_Kofler: yep, that's the problem with forks
14:33:59 <jreznik> but in case of forking, it has to be redone completely, I don't like KPK UI at all
14:34:05 <Kevin_Kofler> I can do the initial patch, sure, but continuing work is going to be tough.
14:34:10 <jreznik> and no one has time
14:34:25 <jreznik> Kevin_Kofler: yes, maintain it - it's always problem with any software
14:35:09 <Kevin_Kofler> I really hope that SMParrish can convince upstream to readd the functionality.
14:35:18 <Kevin_Kofler> But somehow I'm not very positive. :-(
14:35:43 <Kevin_Kofler> (see e.g. the name change)
14:36:29 <Kevin_Kofler> I wonder how many people would be interested in a full-featured KPK under the original name (if upstream lets us use it, otherwise yet another name :-/ ).
14:36:39 <Kevin_Kofler> I'd hope we're not the only ones!
14:36:53 <rdieter> I'm not all that familiar with it, but... *if* we helped get app-install in fedora, how much would that help wrt 0.6.2+?
14:38:52 <Kevin_Kofler> We'd be able to install SOMETHING.
14:38:57 <Kevin_Kofler> But only applications!
14:39:07 <rdieter> ok.
14:39:14 <Kevin_Kofler> No libraries, no -devel packages, no documentation etc.
14:39:48 <ltinkl> back to yum, that's what I call progress
14:39:51 <rdieter> time to go back to gnome-packagekit.
14:39:55 <rdieter> <ducks>
14:39:57 <rdieter> :)
14:40:10 <ltinkl> rdieter: no win there, I guess it will suffer the same
14:40:22 <Kevin_Kofler> (except as dependencies for applications, of course)
14:40:27 <skvidal> have y'all looked at yumex?
14:40:31 <skvidal> if not - you should
14:40:36 <skvidal> lots of good features
14:40:36 <Kevin_Kofler> And yes, somehow I suspect that gnome-packagekit is also going to go the app-only way.
14:40:43 <skvidal> versatility
14:40:47 <skvidal> responsive upstream
14:40:55 <ltinkl> http://dantti.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/kpk2.png
14:40:55 <Kevin_Kofler> It's a very gnomish idea, I'm surprised that KDE is getting infected with that now.
14:40:58 <skvidal> timlau is really great and I suspect he would appreciate feedback
14:41:00 <rdieter> skvidal: thanks, not in quite awhile.
14:41:03 <ltinkl> see how it looks like currently
14:41:13 <skvidal> rdieter: you should look at the recent snapshot on his repo at repos.fp.o
14:41:19 <skvidal> rdieter: some very neat things and it's REALLY fast
14:41:25 <rdieter> skvidal: will do, thanks
14:41:49 <skvidal> http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/timlau/yumex/ <-- there it is
14:41:54 * skvidal lets you get back to your meeting
14:41:56 <skvidal> sorry
14:42:01 <thomasj> What road will GNOME go?
14:42:03 <Kevin_Kofler> Uhm, yumex is GTK+-based, it uses yum directly bypassing all the PackageKit features and last I checked relied on the deprecated consolehelper instead of having a PolicyKit-based privilege system.
14:42:17 <thomasj> Also yumex? I doubt that
14:42:47 * rdieter will take any tool as long as it works (well)
14:42:59 <Kevin_Kofler> thomasj: Yumex is inherently Fedora/RH-only.
14:43:08 <thomasj> So no :)
14:43:25 <Kevin_Kofler> (Well, also for the 2 other folks in the world who use yum… ;-) )
14:43:49 <thomasj> Lets stay with 0.6.1 for now and check what needs to be done *if* upstream  doesn't put the features back in.
14:43:57 <skvidal> Kevin_Kofler: 2 other folks who use yum?
14:44:01 <ltinkl> http://dantti.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/open-the-package-get-your-application/
14:44:02 <rdieter> thomasj: nod, that's already what we are doing
14:44:13 <ltinkl> the corresponding blog about kpackagekit change ^^
14:44:24 <Kevin_Kofler> skvidal: It was an exaggeration. :-)
14:44:27 <skvidal> Kevin_Kofler: I see you're still just a troll
14:44:30 <skvidal> bye
14:44:36 <ltinkl> :o)
14:44:46 <Kevin_Kofler> Pfff… HE always makes this kind of jokes.
14:45:17 <thomasj> Well, i like the screenshot from kpk2
14:45:18 <Kevin_Kofler> It's just a fact that yum doesn't catch on outside of the Fedora/RH world.
14:45:32 <rdieter> Kevin_Kofler: belittling someones project isn't really a good way to make a joke
14:46:06 <ltinkl> from dantti's blog: it still supports installing non-app packages but you just get applications first when searching for something
14:46:07 <Kevin_Kofler> He always belittled my positions in FESCo.
14:46:22 <Kevin_Kofler> But this has nothing whatsoever to do with this meeting, so let's stop polluting the meeting log.
14:46:40 <thomasj> Kevin_Kofler and skvidal == not good friends :)
14:47:19 <rdieter> you don't have to be friends, but I do insist on being civil and respectful
14:47:37 <rdieter> (esp if you think someone isn't being likewise)
14:48:11 <rdieter> if you can't live up to that expectation, you need to find better ways of spending your time and energy
14:48:29 <Kevin_Kofler> Can we get back to the topic please?
14:48:32 <rdieter> (that goes for *everyone*)
14:49:01 <rdieter> ok, soapbox mode off, yes plesae.
14:49:44 <ltinkl> to conclude the kpk topic, I'd suggest asking yum developers whether the support for app-install is planned
14:49:51 <thomasj> rdieter: +100 re: being civil and respectful
14:50:02 <Kevin_Kofler> ltinkl: Well, that doesn't really solve the core problem though.
14:50:16 <Kevin_Kofler> It makes the new KPK do something, but not all the stuff that's needed.
14:50:27 <Kevin_Kofler> And it's still a regression from 0.6.1.
14:50:27 <ltinkl> what else is needed?
14:50:37 <Kevin_Kofler> Installing other packages.
14:50:40 <rdieter> [09:46] <ltinkl> from dantti's blog: it still supports installing non-app packages but you just get applications first when searching for something
14:50:45 <rdieter> ^^
14:50:50 <ltinkl> yup
14:50:54 <thomasj> And it looks really awesome
14:51:03 <ltinkl> I don't like the GUI tbh
14:51:08 <ltinkl> at all, it's a mess
14:51:20 <thomasj> Heh, still it's good vor endusers
14:51:24 <Kevin_Kofler> Hmmm, if it just returns apps first, then why doesn't it work without app-install?
14:51:27 <thomasj> for
14:51:31 <ltinkl> floating button, scrollabrs everywhere, nested layouts, etc
14:51:36 <Kevin_Kofler> That'd just be a bug then.
14:51:53 <rdieter> Kevin_Kofler: maybe the app-first thing tricked us.
14:51:59 <rdieter> I'll try it again, and we can see
14:52:20 <ltinkl> rdieter: right, try and see, maybe it doesn't even require it
14:52:46 <ltinkl> my guess is that *if* app-install is present, you can install the applications that way
14:53:25 <Kevin_Kofler> Well, IIRC the people who tried it reported that they haven't been able to install anything with it.
14:53:27 <Kevin_Kofler> (on Fedora)
14:53:40 <Kevin_Kofler> But sure, let's try again.
14:54:00 <ltinkl> ofc it probably needs the corresponding upstream PackageKit (newest imho) version
14:54:02 <Kevin_Kofler> And if it's supposed to work, then it not working is just a bug and we'll have to figure out how to fix it.
14:55:54 <Kevin_Kofler> The fact that the yum developers recommend bypassing PackageKit altogether, using either Yumex or the yum CLI, isn't a good thing either.
14:56:33 <Kevin_Kofler> We have people developing something on top of something else and then the people developing that something else basically saying that the something is not useful.
14:56:39 <rdieter> Kevin_Kofler: so we're stuck with some icky options:  kpackagekit (with current badness), gnome-packagekit (non-native), yumex (non-native)
14:56:58 <rdieter> which one sucks the least?
14:57:03 <Kevin_Kofler> Well, I suggest looking into 0.6.2 more in detail.
14:57:20 <thomasj> I wan't to try kpk2
14:57:23 <Kevin_Kofler> To see what doesn't work, why it doesn't work (deliberate decision or just a bug) and whether we can easily fix it.
14:57:31 <rdieter> sure.  but don't discount the options... is all I'm saying, until we have all the facts
14:57:45 <Kevin_Kofler> Right now, stick with 0.6.1.
14:58:01 <Kevin_Kofler> We can decide the road once we have fully analyzed the situation with 0.6.2.
14:58:16 <rdieter> I think we can all agree to that.
14:58:17 <Kevin_Kofler> (Because it looks like what I knew might not be the whole truth.)
14:58:40 <rdieter> well, times about up, any parting words before we wrap up?
15:00:14 <thomasj> Reading dantis blog, it seems kpk2 does work as expected and has the "Application" only just on kubuntu and debian.
15:00:22 <thomasj> But i might understand the sentence wrong
15:00:33 <thomasj> Right now KPackageKit 0.6.2 will only have the “Applications” feature on Kubuntu (and maybe on Debian when it gets packaged), since app-install is not available on other distros
15:01:07 * rdieter is hoping the 'sorting applications first' is all that we failed to notice before.
15:01:18 <rdieter> thanks everyone!
15:01:20 <rdieter> #endmeeting