Office/ and Utilities/ menu reorganization

[Lauri Watts]

On Monday 08 August 2005 21.21, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> On Monday, 8. August 2005 20:05, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Michael Nottebrock wrote:

> > The translators and documentation writers would have to keep track of
> > yet-another-release-schedule.
>Perhaps a translator or documentation writer could comment on that. The way
> I see it, it would actually reduce the workload of the *KDE* translators
> and documentation writers and possibly even improve the
> translation/documentations of the respective individual applications,
> because they would attract their own, more focused crowd of translators and
> documentation writers.

From a documentation point of view (this being a documentor who is also a 
packager) it'd be a lot easier if everything wasn't on the same schedule.  We 
have this big long time when we can't do much (because everything is 
changing) and then like 3 weeks when we have to do everything (and can't, 
because we don't have enough people) and then some more time when everyone's 
busy telling us how out of date the docs are and we can't fix them.  

And if they are all on the same schedule, but are kept separately? no 
difference to us really.  If it does attract more focused community (and I 
believe it might, apps like amaroK are doing *great* in extragear) all the 
better.  If it doesn't, we're no worse off than now.  

From an i18n point of view, I believe the same is true (it came up on 
kde-i18n-doc recently, at least some translators pointed out that they like 
the staggered schedules of the extragear apps, because they can do them 
outside the crunch time of KDE releases.) 

From a packaging for an OS that does not split tarballs very much point of 
view, that's because it's a pain in the butt.  And Michael does almost all of 
that work when we do need to split them, and it's a huge job.

> > The packagers would have to keep track of new releases,
>
> Hardly a problem.

We seem to manage it ok for most of the other 13000 odd applications in the 
FreeBSD ports tree.  Trust me, users are very quick to request updates if 
something they actually use has a new release.

> > more dependencies
>
> I can't follow you here.
>
> > and more build scripts to maintain.

Less, actually, for us (FreeBSD).  Splitting tarballs requires tons more work 
than packaging one as is.

> Actually it would enable most packagers to get rid of all sorts of shimmies
> they need to employ right now to provide a standalone package of an
> application that's embedded in a KDE module.
>
> > For a user of a distribution/OS that doesn't split packages, that's more
> > packages to install and keep track of.

That's me and Michael saying the opposite in fact.   I'd like to see KDE 
slimmed down rather a lot for KDE 4, although perhaps not in the same places 
as he would.

Regards,
-- 
Lauri Watts
KDE Documentation: http://docs.kde.org
KDE on FreeBSD: http://freebsd.kde.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20050809/040d1a0d/attachment.sig>