Malaga Discussions III

Harri Porten porten at
Wed Aug 31 14:37:56 BST 2005

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Stephan Kulow wrote:

> kdebase in it's current form is too strictly bound to the UNIX desktop we
> developed so far. Many in the past raised the concern that you don't need
> kicker on Windows, but you still would like to have the ioslaves and the
> helpcenter on it - still both are bound together in one SVN module. So we
> decided to split kdebase into two subsets: those apps that are foundation for
> other applicatins and those apps that make up the KDE desktop. This wasn't
> really controversial.

How about putting those foundation apps into kdelibs then? I'd see no
real difference between DLLs and executables as long as they both make up
a framework.

> The other aspect was much more controversial as it related to kdelibs. The
> idea presented was to split kdelibs into the parts that only rely on Qt each
> (most widgets, some of our kdecore parts) and those parts that are either
> grouped together to make up KDE's framework and the parts that rely on that
> KDE framework.

I don't see the point here. Philosphically. I don't see where to draw the
logical boundary. "KDE libraries use Qt" is what describes our situation.
That means that every KDE library is part of KDE and depends on "itself",
ie. KDE. Whether library B (i.e. kdeui) also relies on library A (i.e.
kdecore) doesn't really matter. A is just another lib that would have to
be shipped with B as is Qt. The important part is just to make sure that
core parts are designed and implemented in a portable part to allow for a
portable base that high level libs can rely on.


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list