A humble packager's request: Retire kdeaddons.

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Wednesday 11 February 2004 16:15, Scott Wheeler wrote:
> On Wednesday 11 February 2004 15:59, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> > sorry, thats not what we're talking about. packages do want JuK and
> > amaroK, but they don't want to have the dependency mess. Here you
> > have to build one module twice to get everything right. that can't
> > be it, and most packagers build systems don't support that.
>
> Right, but packagers don't have to care where the CVS is -- packagers
> will deal with the released TagLib tarball or the released amaroK
> tarball respectively.  There isn't a kdeextragear-3.2.tar.gz that
> they're having to rebuild multiple times.  They'll build TagLib
> before kdemultimedia and amaroK.
>
> The loop that you mention only affects people building CVS -- i.e.
> not (generally speaking) packagers or end users.  I readily admit
> that it's an annoyance, but not one that affects packagers.
>
> > > Also kdeextragear is a special case since it's not released as a
> > > module -- it's just a place that things happen to have their CVS
> > > located.
> >
> > Thats wrong again. kdeextragear has rather strict policy rules
> > which were violated by this import.
>
> Quoting from http://extragear.kde.org/home/about.php --
>
> "All applications in the Extra Gear will be released independently
> from each other, there will never be such thing as a Extra Gear
> package. There is a certain release process for applications in the
> Extra Gear."
>
> That's what I was referring to.  I'm not sure which strict rules
> you're referring to and again, I agree that it's not a great fit, but
> better than the other options...
>
> > kdesupport is something different - it was for copies of 3rd party
> > libs that are not maintained in our CVS.
>
> Yeah, I know -- but somehow "closer" to a good fit...
>
> > TagLib however is a 3rd party lib that *is* maintained in our CVS.
> > I agree it might make sense to reopen kdesupport with that new
> > policy. unserbreak also belongs into kdesupport.
>
> Sounds good to me.  Any objections to such?

In case "unserbreak" tries to be a lame allusion to unsermake then I 
fail to see what's wrong with it staying in kdenonbeta. It's no lib and 
therefore also no 3rd party lib and as such doesn't belong to 
kdesupport. If you want to move it then move it to kdesdk. After all 
it's used by the KDE developers who will anyway use other stuff from 
kdesdk. But I really don't see a reason for moving it away from 
kdenonbeta.

Regards,
Ingo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20040212/55ee2807/attachment.sig>