KDE 4 modules structure (again)

Dominique Devriese dominique.devriese at student.kuleuven.ac.be
Wed Mar 17 16:22:14 GMT 2004

Alexander Neundorf writes:

> On Tuesday 16 March 2004 01:01, Richard Moore wrote: ...
>> process for developers (a scarce resource) a nightmare and would
>> make it almost impossible to ensure that everyone is working with
>> consistent versions leading to horrendous version skew within the
>> core of KDE.

> One important point in your statement is "within the core of KDE."
> I also don't favour splitting the modules too much.  But currently
> what is "the core of KDE" ?  IMO kstars, kpovmodeller, quanta,
> kdevelop, amor and other things like this are not the "core" of
> KDE. They are very good applications, but they are not the core of a
> desktop.  When KDE was started, the basic applications were grouped
> mainly according to their "topic": kdenetwork, kdegraphic,
> kdemultimedia. Nowadays these modules have grown very much and
> include much more than just basic desktop environment applications.

> <snip>

> What do you think about this ?

What I don't understand is why people insist on having some semantic
subdivision of the applications.  IMHO, it's just a technical problem
of what would be the easiest for all KDE developers and users.

Again: splitting up on an app- or lib-level reduces dependency
problems ( no more moving stuff from kdenonbeta to elsewhere, no more
moving other stuff around, no more not using stuff because it's in the
wrong module ( KDE-Edu is already waiting for a long time for
KNewStuff to kdelibs ) etc. ).  It also draws clear borders between
different apps and libs, which is a very good thing for the packagers,
users caring about what apps they need etc.

Anyway, I'm going to give up on the issue, since this seems to be
very rusted into KDE's structure...


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list