What's the point of tiers if we bend the definition of them?

[Kevin Ottens]

On Tuesday 17 March 2015 08:21:22 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> On Monday 16 March 2015 23:16:51 Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > We have KPackage depending on kdoctools but since it's optional we pretend
> > it's not a real dependency and call KPackage tier2
> > 
> > What's in it for us other than lying to ourselves? What's so bad about
> > KPackage being tier 3?
> > 
> > It'd still have only 3 dependencies and be totally usable, no?
> 
> Maybe it needs to document both:
> * without optional packages it's tier 2
> * with optional packages it's tier 3
> 
> I can imagine that this will be interesting for more frameworks where it
> could be that depending on which platform we run on it's a different tier
> (kglobalaccel is currently tier 1 for non-X11, but tier3 on X11).

I'd be concerned about the complexity of that though. It needs to be 
communicable to the outside.

Now perhaps it's a question of "what's needed to get it to build and be usable 
on all platforms". I'm not sure that kdoctools is part of those requirements. 
It's "just" to get manpages generated.

IOW, not having kdoctools doesn't prevent you to build something on top of 
kpackage and run it while not having KWindowsSystem breaks kglobalaccel on 
some platforms.

Regards.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com

-------------- 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/20150317/496da370/attachment.sig>