kevin.krammer at gmx.at
Tue Nov 14 12:20:55 GMT 2006
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 02:01, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Kevin Krammer wrote:
> >On Monday 13 November 2006 23:14, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> >> i can see the following options:
> >> - the two teams agree to work on one codebase
> >> - do the same thing we did with cd burners and put them all into KEG
> >> and let user demand sort it out
> >Right, the Salomonic solution. Nobody wins, everybody looses.
> > Unfortunately the only fair option beside the optimal first one :(
> I wouldn't say that everybody lost in the CD burner debate. We had three
> applications at the time, not counting KOnCD. And a clear winner
I don't remember exactly, but I am not sure the CD burner conflict meant
removing something from a "main" package and moving it to KEG.
With "everybody looses" I meant that no projects is allowed into a main
package and the main package looses the PDF viewer.
Anyway, there are only three "fair" solutions:
1) both are in kdegraphics
2) neither is in kdegraphics
3) a single program (either a merged on or if one becomes unmaintained) is in
It seems (3) is not very likely.
(1) won't be a problem for most of the people, but will trigger the "oh boy,
KDE has three text editors" trolls.
The actual problem is packaging. There is no problem in having two similar
programs in the same sub repository, no problem in having them released at
the same time, but since some distributions create just one single package
per SVN module, there will be a redundancy at installation time.
Since this packaging policies are not going to change soon (unfortunately),
I'd even say that any feature rich application should not be in a module that
gets handled this way (unless they are a combined thing like KOffice)
Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer
KDE user support, developer mentoring
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the kde-core-devel