Okular moving

Gary L. Greene, Jr. greeneg at phoenuxos.com
Mon Nov 20 23:31:05 GMT 2006

On Monday 20 November 2006 15:05, Leo Savernik wrote:
> Am Montag, 20. November 2006 13:30 schrieb Kevin Krammer:
> > > The really big problem with this approach is that people have to know
> > > beforehand which application they have to install to get feature X.
> >
> > Actually no, that's the point of a package dependency, isn't it?
> > If a user installs the KDE desktop package, e.g. usually a meta package
> > called "kde" or "kde-desktop", it will depend on the packages that make
> > up a full-featured KDE desktop. If it does depend on kdegraphics or just
> > KPDF is not a teeny weeny bit different to the user at install time, but
> > gets them less crowded K-menu at runtime.
> Yeah, but then we're totally at the mercy of distributors to assemble
> suitable "kde" metapackages. Some will get it right and others will blow
> it.
> The current way as I understand it for KDE 4 is to consolidate the best
> apps into their respecitive kde{network,pim,graphics,multimedia,...}
> packages and have them released as "KDE - The Desktop Environment".
> Duplicates go to
> kde{extragear,playground,blackhole,whatever-else-not-being-released}.
> The current grouping gives invaluable hints to packagers which applications
> to bundle into meta-packages. If essential applications are moved out of
> "KDE - The Desktop Environment", we again have to rely on distributors to
> grab those essentials from KEG and link them in their meta-packages.
> Even worse, it will lead to a segregation of our user base as distributor x
> may choose suitable application A, while distributor y may choose suitable
> application B for the same purpose.
> This blurs the line between packages tightly intertwined with "KDE - The
> Desktop Environment" and externally developed packages with their own
> release schedule which just happen to use the KDE infrastructure.

This is STILL going to happen, no matter if you do it the way you propose. 
Many distributions think that they have the "killer" combination of apps for 
a "desktop *NIX" so I really doubt that this policy shift will help at all.

> [...]
> > Anyway. Since source repository organisation currently implies
> > installation modules and this is not likely to change anytime soon, we
> > should just make KEG an official module and have it released
> > (additionally to their own intermediate releases) as one hugh package
> > (poeple other than me seem to like hugh packages) whenever KDE releases.
> KEG has become way too big to install it as a whole. Given how bitchy it is
> to extract out a single app and build it (has this improved with cmake?),
> and given that users who want to gain functionality selectively again have
> to know the name of the package, this suggestion seems to lead to more
> disadvantages than advantages.

Never been an issue for me, but then, I don't do a mega-build of KEG, I do 
them individually as they are released on their respective web sites.

> > Everybody gets "everything of KDE" and everybody is happy and we do no
> > longer need to discuss into which module to put apps.
> <irony detector ringing>
> mfg
> 	Leo

Gary L. Greene, Jr.
Sent from: uriel.tolharadys.net
 18:28:22 up 1 day,  1:49,  7 users,  load average: 0.17, 0.22, 0.18
Volunteer Developer for the PhoeNUX OS open source project
    See http://www.phoenuxos.com/ for more information

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20061120/c7f773af/attachment.sig>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list