Fedora 40 has a problem. An accepted system-wide change (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3086) clearly specifies that "For Fedora Linux, the transition to KDE Plasma 6 will also include dropping support for the X11 session entirely, leaving only Plasma Wayland as the sole offered desktop mode." This change was voted upon and accepted.
After the deadline for new changes, FESCO has approved a series of packages that would re-introduce the KDE x11 session, in violation of this system-wide change. This is an unprecedented situation. I propose that the Fedora Council overrides FESCO in this case, and restores the proper procedure for following system-wide changes. The KDE x11 packages belong in a COPR, not in official Fedora.
Why would FESCo not be allowed to make this decision? This has always been under FESCo's jurisdiction, the Change approval was also a FESCo decision. It is also not unheard of for FESCo to revisit and overrule its own decisions, see, e.g., https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2923. Though in this case, I do not even see anything being overruled, given the clarification of the original Change given by the KDE SIG itself before it was voted on by FESCo: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-proposal-kde-plasma-6-system-wide/89794/11. If anything, the wording of the Change needs to be fixed. So I really cannot see any justification for this appeal.
Sorry, for the example of a revisited FESCo decision, I meant to refer to https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2923 rather than https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3084 (which was the followup 2 releases later) – I edited my comment above.
Do system-wide changes carry any weight at all in Fedora? If not, then you have a much bigger problem than just x11 packages.
Yes, there is a procedure for change decisions to be revisited. As far as I can tell, that procedure was not followed with the kde-x11 packages. Or am I missing an accepted change to add KDE x11 back? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/40/ChangeSet
Why, when the KDE change was accepted on November second, were the x11 packages not submitted until January 28, well after the Change proposal deadlines?
It appears that what we have here is a small group of maintainers trying to add packages that subvert an accepted change proposal. That seems to be exactly the sort of situation that the Council needs to weigh in on.
Because it obviously does not make sense to add separate -x11 packages before the subpackages are actually removed, so submitting them immediately when the change was accepted, but not yet implemented, would not have made sense.
And I submitted these changes well within the timeline to get new packages into Fedora 40, before even the branch point from Rawhide: https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-40/f-40-all-tasks.html – I did not consider Change proposal deadlines to be relevant because in my view, these packages do not conflict with any Change, considering the statement from a KDE SIG member (that nobody at the time questioned) back in September (as linked above: https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f40-change-proposal-kde-plasma-6-system-wide/89794/11). In my view, these are just regular new packages and the freezes for new packages are all that apply.
I would also like to point out the bad faith with which the KDE SIG is trying to prevent the introduction of those packages:
<@conan_kudo:matrix.org>
Oh, and:
Per the Changes policy, Changes are a FESCo matter, not a Council matter.
Of course, you are free to appeal any FESCo decision to the Council under the general escalation policy. I just fail to see any grounds for your appeal and would hence ask the Council to reject it, confirming the FESCo decision.
I am not KDE SIG. I'm merely an outside observer that is concerned with Fedora's direction, and the inability to actually follow project policy regarding changes.
I am also concerned that a packager that has been banned from the KDE SIG is being allowed to undercut the SIG in this way. The conflict of interest alone casts a shadow over this issue.
I find your accusations of "bad faith" to be disturbing, and particularly interesting when reviewing all the details of this sordid affair.
And finally, I genuinely wish you would put your efforts into fixing the last few issues that are present in Wayland for some users, rather than spending so much energy fighting for the dead-end solution that is X11. The worst possible scenario is that X11 becomes shambling zombie in Fedora: Dead, unmaintained, but still shambling along, because a few people refuse to let it die. How many more 35-year-old vulnerabilities do we have to find in X11 before we finally give up on it?
I am not KDE SIG.
I never claimed you were. Though this is just one more reason why I do not see you having any grounds for this appeal. You are not even a party to the FESCo decision.
a packager that has been banned from the KDE SIG
This just makes this personal and is entirely irrelevant for the technical decision at hand. I am also willing to let somebody else maintain the packages instead of me if someone signs up for it. Less work for me is always fine with me. But I was the one who did the work, so I submitted the review requests and will become the maintainer by default.
The conflict of interest alone casts a shadow over this issue.
You see a "conflict of interest" in me submitting these packages (which I intend to use daily), but not in the KDE SIG filing a FESCo ticket trying to ban them?
But I think this discussion must be approached from a technical standpoint, not an ad hominem one. FESCo did a good job at that, even the KDE SIG did an OK job at that, and I also tried hard to not make this personal. You are trying to turn this discussion into an attack on my person. May I remind you of the Code of Conduct explicitly banning "personal attacks"?
I use Plasma on X11 daily, no Wayland on the desktop/notebook for me, no thanks! It is bad enough that Wayland is forced on us in Plasma Mobile (PinePhone), Plasma Desktop at least gives us a choice.
I find your accusations of "bad faith" to be disturbing
I pointed out 2 contradictions which, at least to me, are obvious. Interpret them as you wish. I have a hard time believing that they were accidents, I am sorry.
And finally, I genuinely wish you would put your efforts into fixing the last few issues that are present in Wayland for some users, rather than spending so much energy fighting for the dead-end solution that is X11.
Why would I want to spend time on improving something I do not and do not intend to use instead of packaging what I actually use daily? Why should I not be free to package the software that I personally care about? Is that not what Free Software is about?
The worst possible scenario is that X11 becomes shambling zombie in Fedora: Dead, unmaintained, but still shambling along, because a few people refuse to let it die. How many more 35-year-old vulnerabilities do we have to find in X11 before we finally give up on it?
There are few to no critical security vulnerabilities left in X11, and I do not expect a lot to come up anymore. Especially not if most people switch to Wayland as you wish. If vulnerabilities come up, they will need to be patched. That is normally up to the maintainers of the X11 packages, not the Plasma X11 ones, but if really needed, as a provenpackager, I can also help with X11 security fixes.
Note that I do not consider things such as "malware running as my user can remote-control applications run under kdesu" (which are by design) critical vulnerabilities. If I have malware running as my user, I have already lost. That malware can already encrypt all my documents for ransom, steal all my passwords, etc., so it being able to remote-control GUI applications running as root, if I happen to run any, is the least of my worries in that case.
I am also keeping other stuff alive that I use all the time, such as the kdelibs 3 and 4 libraries. (I still have the kdelibs3 KSensors sitting in my system tray all the time!)
I cannot do this any more. Please STOP all this innuendo, references and comments about intentions of people.
Furthermore, bringing the KDE SiG into this ticket has no place, we did not do this. Control your personal antagonism.
Thanks.
Agreed. This was initiated by a 3rd party user because I (And I believe the others in the sig feels similar if not same) believe that there's no fighting this anymore. FESCo seems to be intent on keeping the status quo.
And I (again, as well as most other people in the sig) am completely burnt out on this issue.
Revel in your stagnancy Kevin, I just don't care anymore.
I'm an outsider to the whole issue: no KDE SIG member, no FESCo member, and no Council member, but since I receive notifications, I will consider myself included in the matter.
On Personal Attacks
@farchord You can be tired and burnt out and everything you want, but this is a personal attack. Please stop it.
There is no need to highlight anyone position on any matter, if you don't agree, just say you don't and possibly why, but making personal attacks are not the Fedora's way.
From the Fedora Project organization perspective If FESCo already approve it, and there is no technical issues with the packages, there is no reason to block this, and less reasons to try to overrule FESCo decision on the matter. Like the KDE SIG already stated it, they just won't maintain the packages, and that's ok, any provenpackager can.
From the technical perspective If none can or want to maintain any of the kde-x11 packages, that isn't making x11 disappear from Fedora's repositories. Just to clarify, since that's what OP comments looks like. There are still lot of packages, and other Desktops environments that relies on X11, not to mention almost all stand-alone windows managers (like i3wm, openbox, ratpoison and more).
kde-x11
From the community perspective Undermine a decision from an upper body by the council, without any explicit reason, like a breakage, or system failure, looks like overruling the community. FESCo is a community elected body, while the council isn't.
From my personal perspective This just looks like a personal attack on a packager. I'm not going to stand on any position, but unless a real technical blocker can be prove against any of the packages (that were already approved by FESCo) is stated, it doesn't make any sense. I think Council doesn't have any business in personal matter, unless they become CoC violations.
My suggestion is to close this ticket as "declined"
I get the strong impression that KDE SIG does not actually support this request to override FESCo.
As the KDE SIG lead, I am disappointed in FESCo's ruling, but will honor it as long as it stands. If Council chooses to overrule it and maintain the integrity of the KDE SIG's actual Change, then that's great for us. But as a SIG, we are stepping aside on this issue entirely.
We are not contesting nor are we participating in this discussion of this ticket. Officially, we have "no opinion" about this ticket.
Following a council discussion, we have decided to close this ticket as 'No Action Needed'. We said invalid in the chat logs, but alas, that option wasnt there :-/
The council see no reason to override FESCos decision - this is within their scope and we support their ruling.
We do however, acknowledge that there is a genuine concern from folks in the KDE SIG that by association, they will be expected to respond to issues filed against x11 packages. To help mitigate this, the council will issue a statement to the Fedora community, reminding folks that SIGs define their own scope and maintenance, and what 'support' means in the Fedora community.
The initial conversation can be found in the Fedora Council matrix room, and the formal meeting log can be found here https://meetbot-raw.fedoraproject.org//meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2024-02-14/fedora-council-meeting.2024-02-14-15.05.txt
Metadata Update from @amoloney: - Issue close_status updated to: no action needed - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Seems all nvidia legacy drivers don't support wayland, So the only good option to not break is use kde-x11 , I guess.
Log in to comment on this ticket.