Versioning of Frameworks

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 15:39:02 David Faure wrote:
> On Sunday 10 May 2015 12:36:53 Christian Mollekopf wrote:
> > * I'd consider Qt to be a lower level library. Qt mostly provides
> > fundamentals just like libc or the STL,
> > and it's therefore okay for me to just work with what I have available.
> 
> I hope you can understand that the decision on how Qt (on one side) and KDE
> Frameworks (on the other side) should be released, does not only depend on
> the way *you* consider Qt and KF5. Other people have a different view on
> both (e.g. Qt developers do work on Qt, while app developers might treat
> KF5 as something "fundamental where they just work with what they have
> available). You want to draw a line somewhere, while others draw it
> elsewhere, and yet we have to make decisions that work for everyone, not
> just for you.

it's not just him.
It's me (at work) too. Maybe many developers which use Qt at work (with an 
commercial license).
There I have Qt available, as Christian says, it feels like a system library, 
our application is built on it.

Now from time to time we need some additional functionality. This is the place 
where frameworks libraries could come in. The easier this is, the better.
Easy would mean that if I need kfoo, and this depends on kcoreaddons and 
kwidgetaddons, I need to add only those three libs to my build, and when kfoo 
has a bugfix I need, I don't have to automatically update also kcoreaddons and 
kwidgetaddons, but only if this is really necessary (i.e. kfoo started using 
functionality from newer versions).
This indeed requires that maintainers carefully maintain which versions of 
their dependencies are needed (sometimes not requiring the newest version is 
also a good thing).

Alex