RFC: Splitting Qt4 packages and implications of this

[David Faure]

On Wed Dec 6 2006, Josef Spillner wrote:
> Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2006 19:59 schrieb Jarosław Staniek:
> > We know the benefits of having splitted Qt4 into gui and nongui libs.
> > Now, the question is: what's up at the packaging level?
> 
> Since others already answered to the packaging part of this thread, let me 
> pick up the "implication" from the topic and ask to which level we want 
> kdelibs to be modular enough to match Qt's modularity. Right now when I 
> compile kdelibs against qt-embedded it already bails out early because no 
> session management stuff can be found. Of course I don't even want session 
> management in this case if I only use kdelibs to get better libraries instead 
> of aiming at perfect desktop integration. Similarly, a "normal" Qt without 
> dbus would also not work even if there are many cases where one doesn't want 
> dbus at all.
> Since kdelibs is already stuffed with #ifdefs until no good, what is the 
> feeling on trying to still make it compile in this cases and only provide the 
> functionality which is available from the dependencies together with some 
> warnings for the average users?

I think it's ok to make kdelibs compileable without session management support,
this is probably useful on Windows/MacOsX as well.

However making it compileable without DBUS support seems like madness to me...
Everything relies on DBUS.

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).