KDE/kdelibs

[Sebastian Trueg]

Well, first of all: this was in the feature plan so I did not breach any
policy.
Secondly it was planned for a long time and Nepomuk-aware developers new
of it, even counted on it (see for example Akonadi).
So I don't see the issue here.

Cheers,
Sebastian

Ian Wadham wrote:
> On Thursday 26 November 2009 10:18:52 am Andreas Pakulat wrote:
>   
>> On 25.11.09 20:49:42, Sebastian Trueg wrote:
>>     
>>> SVN commit 1054298 by trueg:
>>>
>>> Nepomuk in kdelibs now depends on the new shared-desktop-ontologies
>>> package which is developed in the OSCAF project[1] - a joint forces
>>> project by members of Nepomuk-KDE, Strigi, Tracker, and other research
>>> partners such as DFKI Kaiserslautern or DERI Galway.
>>>
>>> After this commit I will start to remove all copies of ontologies from
>>> the KDE svn.
>>>       
>> IMHO:
>> As this is clearly not a bugfix, the cmake-parts are apparently broken
>> (see Alex mail), its not in the feature plan and you didn't announce
>> this new dependency anywhere I think you need to revert this and wait
>> with it for KDE 4.5. You completely ignored any policies we've setup for
>> kdelibs development.
>>
>>     
> IMHO also:
> Quite apart from any breach of rules that may have taken place, I object
> in principle to new KDE library dependencies being introduced at the
> instigation of one developer or group of developers, presumably for the
> convenience of their own work, not just in this case but in several other
> cases in the past.
>
> What it means is that *every* developer who wants to update the libraries
> he/she normally uses, for any reason at all, has to go and find the required
> package, download it, build it, etc, etc, regardless of whether they have
> any use for it or even know what it is [1].  That process is repeated hundreds
> of times around the globe by one KDE developer after another ...  FAIK
> it may also affect the work of distros and eventually end-users.  In this
> case, for example, will the average user need this ontologies thing?
>
> Surely there is a better way?  I am certain there must be ...
>
> Cheers, Ian W.
>
> [1] My dictionary defines "ontology" as "the branch of metaphysics dealing
>      with the nature of being", but I doubt if it means that in this case.
>
>