phonon hassle to build WAS: Re: Policy for Dependencies

[Harald Sitter]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Christoph Cullmann <cullmann at absint.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Christoph Cullmann <cullmann at absint.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Christoph Cullmann <cullmann at absint.com> wrote:
>>>>> phonon is a hassle on both win/mac (if you don't require audio, like most
>>>>> applications won't)
>>>>
>>>> Oo
>>>>
>>>> explain please?
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> to build phonon with an usable backends is work on mac and win
>>
>> but why would you want to build a backend if you need no sound anyway?
> Thats the point, if I don't build a backend, I don't need phonon and I can
> save building + shipping it with just making phonon optional for knotifications,
> which internally already is build in a way to have it optional.

So what's the hassle with phonon then? Building? Maybe I am being daft
today but it seems to me that testing/supporting an entire alternate
build configuration for knotification is a greater effort than
building a library that has zero requirements on top of what
knotification already requires and already does the same thing the
alternate build configuration would do - i.e. abstract away things you
might not need.