State of Proposal to improving KDE Software Repository Organization?

Friedrich W. H. Kossebau kossebau at
Wed Jan 20 18:00:49 GMT 2016

Am Dienstag, 19. Januar 2016, 13:57:10 schrieb Ben Cooksley:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Friedrich W. H. Kossebau
> <kossebau at> wrote:
> > 4 months ago there was the thread "Proposal to improving KDE Software
> > Repository Organization" on this mailinglist.
> > What happened to that plan? Are people preparing its execution?
> That plan is tied up in other things taking priority / lack of time / etc.
> We'll get there eventually. It is also in part related to the Phabricator
> move.

Okay, so still work in progress. Good.

> > And would that be a time where some bigger reorganization of the repos is
> > possible?
> > 
> > Reason that I ask is that due to the split of Calligra into several repos
> > (see background^) the layout in the repo structure does no longer
> > properly reflect the project organisation. Right now there are three
> > active repos in the calligra/ repo substructure:
> > "calligra" at "calligra/"
> > "krita"    at "calligra/krita"
> > "kexi"     at "calligra/kexi"
> > 
> > (("calligra" at "calligra/" confuses at least kdesrc-build, sent an email
> > to mpyne about if moving it to "calligra/calligra" should fix it.))
> Repositories within repositories is a known bad thing to do, the
> systems don't handle it properly at all (as it was never an intended
> thing you should do). The proper fix is to move the repo to
> calligra/calligra (ie. have a "calligra/" top level grouping project).

This move is now requested on , the 
respective kde-build-metadata change locally prepared.

> > Things that are not properly matching organization:
> > * Krita starting with 3.* no longer is part of Calligra project
> > 
> >   (screws e.g. and also
> >   what people think to which project Krita belongs)
> > 
> > * Calligra & Krita are nowhere different to KDevelop, Digikam & Co,
> > 
> >   so no reason to be in a complete own toplevel structure,
> >   rather should be in the same sub structure, i.e. "Extragear",
> >   like extragear/calligra/* and extragear/graphics/krita
> In the Phabricator world I had envisioned Extragear as no longer existing.

Okay, sounds good.

> > More, not only Calligra & Krita related:
> > * "Extragear" is an awful grouping name for apps with individual
> > 
> >   release plans, a legacy term that no longer fits most of the apps
> >   in that substructure
> > 
> > * "KDE Applications" is a misleading grouping name for apps with a
> > 
> >   central release plan, as if those with individual release plans
> >   are not "KDE" applications (as in, not done in the KDE community)
> > 
> > * a single category per app as needed by the current tree structure layout
> > 
> >   of the repos, like "office", "graphics", "utils", is rather awkward,
> >   many apps do not match exactly one or would match multiple categories
> Phabricator will allow multiple "categories" to be tagged to a repository...

Nice, sounds even better.

> > So IMHO some update of the repository organisation would be good, to
> > reflect how things are these days.
> > Renaming of "Extragear" and "KDE Applications" is surely something which
> > needs care from promo/marketing/VDG people first to find if that makes
> > sense at all and what a good solution would be.
> Extragear is really an internal structure, not part of marketing so I
> think we can go ahead and just kill it...

Seems we all pull on the same string then, glad to see that :)

> > (Being both maintainer of Okteta, which is in "KDE Applications", and
> > meta-co- maintainer of Calligra, which is not, but still done in the very
> > same KDE community, that current naming seems so wrong to me).
> > 
> > But the actual names and grouping aside, for the pure technical renewing
> > (which also involves all infrastructure like translation system,
> > documentation, phabricator, etc), who is currently planning or working on
> > what?
> Like most things in this department, Sysadmin...

So in good hands, I leave it there :P Nah, ready to also do some share of work 
on this, as I would like this itch scratched as well. Please call me where you 
see fit.

> > So does it makes sense to wait some more, or should we assume the current
> > organization stays for longer, and Calligra & Krita repos should be moved
> > inside that organization for now?
> Not sure how long things are going to take sorry.
> Chances are the existing tree will survive in some form (even if it is
> only in the XML file various things use) so you may as well do it now.


So to reduce some complexity in the possibly longer living tree then, and to 
also resolve this strange exceptional state of Calligra & Krita repos, which I 
fear to shape some people's mind, I would like to propose to
* move the toplevel node "calligra/" below "extragear/",
  with the repos calligra & kexi ending up at
  (following the example of kdevelop)
* move the krita repo to either
  "extragear/graphics/krita" or some new
  "extragear/krita/krita", if an own krita section makes sense
So extragear would then contain all non-central repos, and krita would no 
longer be mixed into the calligra repo in all places (and thus help people to 
get that Krita & Calligra are now separate projects, in all friendship :) ).
While this will mean some adaption work now for all of CI, API, LXR, EBN, 
scripty, in the long run it should pay off, for the given motivation.
It would also match plans to reduce the kdesupport/ subtree I think I read 
about elsewhere.

What do you think? Ready to do work where I can to get this done.

On the matter of marketing and the term "KDE Applications" I will poke people 
separately and later,


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list