phonon hassle to build WAS: Re: Policy for Dependencies

[Harald Sitter]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Christoph Cullmann <cullmann at absint.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>>>> 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.
> KNotifications already has that abstraction.
> All output things are internal plugins.
> And that abstraction is already in use there, for e.g. QtSpeech.
> Why build and ship phonon for exactly no gain?
> The knotifications change is 5 lines.
> If we want to make frameworks attractive for 3rdparty devs, I don't understand the issue here.

Maybe I am thinking of the wrong type of 3rd party dev then. I was
under the impression that one shouldn't need to build frameworks
themself but rather get a bunch of prebuilt framework bins of which
they can choose the ones they need and then build their application on
top.
Ah well. whatever.