----- Original Message -----
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Jaroslav Reznik jreznik@redhat.com wrote:
----- Original Message -----
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Williamson" awilliam@redhat.com To: "Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop" desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Wednesday, March 5, 2014 3:20:06 AM Subject: Re: KDE integration/status for Workstation
On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 19:59 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Hi All,
During the default DE discussions, a number of WG members expressed interest in keeping KDE as a release blocking DE for Workstation. QA is now asking FESCo about KDE's status as well in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1243
So if KDE is going to be a release blocking DE for Workstation, we need to figure out how exactly it gets installed and what manner it would be tested in. In the above ticket I came up with the following:
install the Workstation live image, install KDE through software-installer (if necessary), log into KDE from GDM after install, test
However, that was entirely off the top of my head. Would the live image be large enough to contain the KDE Workstation already or would a user/QA tester need to install it through the software-installer? What tests should be done? Etc.
Thoughts?
This with my Personal Opinion hat on, not representing QA:
I'm not sure all/most people who actually want to use Fedora KDE are likely to be sold on doing it by downloading what they will see as 'GNOME', installing that, and then installing KDE on top of it. I think this will be fine for some folks, but there'll be a significant constituency which just wants a KDE image.
In fact we might be creating a bit of a problem, because I can see both "want KDE as an alternative desktop on top of the Workstation product" and "just want Fedora KDE" as two entirely legitimate and viable constituencies, which sort of means we've just created a bunch of extra work for ourselves. I'm not sure I see a clever magical solution to that, though. Engage brain cells... --
Well my take is that there will never be a solution that makes everyone happy, but in my mind the expectation here has always been that the people who would not be happy about the proposed solution would end up focusing their energy on doing a remix. Because there isn't really a way we can make a product and at the same time be a solution for people who essentially want a different product.
Yep, and that probably leads back to the question if we want or don't want to provide more products than we currently have so far (three). And to be honest, I like idea having more products but with very high bar (that should apply for all products) - to avoid a situation of having dozens of products but still be inclusive.
All of your subsequent email is perfectly fine, but this thread is focused on what we want to do with KDE in the Workstation product. If you want to advocate for a KDE product, please take that discussion to the devel list. I don't want to derail this conversation, and this list isn't the right place to discuss what you're suggesting.
Well, I really think the answer to the question , if KDE - as vague as KDE stands here - is release blocking (and now doesn't matter if as part of WS product, spin or even separate product) depends on the way, how it's going to be delivered.
Before we know it, it's non sense to discuss if having an option in the Software Installer is blocking thing and how to treat it. And I'd still say close coordination between WS WG and KDE SIG is the must.
On the other hand, I'd not object going even more forward and have WS product as a GNOME desktop but with desktop agnostic set of applications offered in default installation. I think that's the way Christian thinks about it - better integration of both of these worlds (from theming, to accessibility). Once this part is done, workstation product could be open to serve as real one, not one specific desktop showcase (and doesn't matter which one, I really don't care in such case) product. Then, even that post install does not have to be release blocking and only optional thing for people who really want the Plasma desktop. From what I understand from some WS WG folks, this could be preferred option but I heard, there were objections to have kdelibs in the tech specs. With move to KDE Frameworks 5, it could be raised again, as it's going to be more Qt 5 add on modules than old fashioned monolithic kdelibs.
Jaroslav