Policy for Dependencies

[Martin Klapetek]

Hey,

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Christoph Cullmann <cullmann at absint.com>
wrote:

>
> I hope I didn't upset anybody, just got a bit frustrated by the current
> state of
> the art. Alone how many patches for all our stuff are floating around in
> the net
> to make it somehow buildable instead of some solution inside frameworks
> made
> me really sad :/ And the amount of work that went into patching Qt to
> behave like
> on Linux on non-linux makes me even more sad, given the effort of the
> people
> at the Qt Company to make Qt more native and attractive for these
> platforms.
>

Just for the record, I'm not upset about the KNotification change, I just
don't think it's a correct one. That said, I very much support the idea of
allowing to build in an essentials-only way. I'm not entirely sure about
which approach (per framework or global) is better though. I tend to
agree about having per-framework switches and let it up to the integrator
to decide what is wanted/needed (in API/ABI limits of course). On the
other hand, I can see that going through ~60+ frameworks, reading all
the options and setting many of them manually, can be quite tiresome.

But as long as specifying such flag is explicit and not on-by-default, I'm
happy to look in KNotification framework and see what all can be made
non-essential.

One other thing that came to my mind, albeit a bit too soon, is the
framework's tier. Let's say that in the essentials-only build the tier is
actually one or two level above its normal tier; should that be reflected
somehow somewhere? Or would tiers just loose their meanings then?

Cheers
-- 
Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-frameworks-devel/attachments/20151013/14d2d6f9/attachment.html>