RFC: split platformtheme plugin from frameworkintegration and move to kde/workspace

[Martin Graesslin]

On Monday, December 14, 2015 2:40:16 PM CET Mark Gaiser wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Marco Martin <notmart at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday 10 December 2015, Mark Gaiser wrote:
> > > It's not just a barrier in my head. It's a waste of resources if one
> > > package that doesn't need a dozen dependencies, pulls it in because
> > 
> > someone
> > 
> > > decided it doesn't matter for the resources. If you don't use it, don't
> > > install it.
> > > But that's my opinion. You know i'm all about optimization (more so then
> > > other people) so i can understand if you don't share this opinion.
> > 
> > It's really asking the wrong question: it's really a matter of wether or
> > not
> > the Plasma desktop QPT (that's what it is even right now, even if it isn't
> > in
> > the workspace/ repositories yet) makes sense used on different platforms
> > (and
> > would still not be forbidden doing so, the cost of it would still be quite
> > negligible)
> > but it's not really what you want on Windows
> > nor what you want in OSX
> > nor what you want in GNOME
> > or XFCE
> > and yeah, probably not even in LXQt
> > even in Plasma Mobile, we'll need a different QPT
> 
> Please!
> Stop assuming things i never said!
> 
> For the full fledged desktop environments (windows, mac, plasma, gnome,
> xfce, etc...) you are all completely right.
> And that wasn't the point i was trying to make at all.
> 
> The point i was trying to make is where a user - for whatever reason -
> decides to use a light weight desktop (say openbox, or say a tilling window
> manager, think along THOSE lines) there a user might very well prefer the
> dialogs that frameworks can provide if the QPT is installed over the stock
> Qt dialogs. LXQt is doubtful since it is somewhere in the middle.
> 
> That is the point i'm trying to make over and over again.
> 
> Now some seem to think that's the wrong thing to do since every "desktop
> environment" (say i3 tilling wm, just for fun and to prevent further
> assumptions of gnome...) needs to implement their own QPA to get the
> framework fancy dialogs. That's fine if you think that. It's an RFC! Those
> opinions should be shared since it's the intention of an RFC to get the
> opinion of others. I think one QPA with just the framework goodness should
> exists (and does exist right now) that should be usable on every wm (yes,
> say i3 again) if the user decides to do that.

you really think that those "lightweight" i3 users use anything from KDE? We 
are the bloatware kings in their eyes. And no, this practically is just a non 
existing case. Please see for example popcon:

* https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=plasma-workspace
* https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=frameworkintegration
* https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=i3-wm
* https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=openbox

If we assume that the users of frameworkintegration without plasma-workspace 
are those i3 users than we have 60 users for that.

Btw. to me there is no difference between a full fledged desktop environment 
and an i3 session. The users use it like a desktop environment, it should be 
treated like one. If i3 wants to use the QPT, they need to provide one and I 
highly recommend to do it, because KWin is not a tiling WM. This has influence 
on how our dialogs look like.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20151214/a449ccd2/attachment.sig>