Policy for Dependencies

[Aleix Pol]

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Kevin Ottens <ervin at kde.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wednesday 14 October 2015 21:20:33 Christoph Cullmann wrote:
>> Therefore my goal for frameworks is to make them actually as easy usable
>> for people in that situation. We advertise that a lot everywhere but at the
>> moment that is just not true beside for really simple stuff like "karchive".
>
> Just to put some historical perspective into this particular point. It *is*
> true, but for tier 1 and tier 2 frameworks only. That's why the dependency
> rules of the tier system were designed the way they are.
>
> So if you are "people in that situation" as described by Christoph in his
> email: stay away from anything which is above tier 2 or make it an optional
> dependency. You still have more than 30 frameworks to pick from for the other
> ones YMMV, you should be warned headaches might or might not be ahead with
> tier 3.
>
> If you are someone working on a given framework and you are just content of
> having it in KF5's tier 3, but did no refactoring or API work to get it to
> tier 2 or tier 1: you're missing the point of KF5's tier and type
> organization. You are also prematurely shrinking its potential user base and
> that should bother you, really.
>
> If you remember the talk I gave back in the days about KF5, I mentioned that
> the tier and type matrix is also a *maturity* system. It is our responsibility
> to push the frameworks down the stack as much as possible. Since then, I see
> lots of frameworks appearing, I don't see many of them lowering their tier...
>
> Regards.

Would it make sense then to define as part of the tier only the
mandatory dependencies?

Then the variable could be, instead of what Christoph proposed,
something like KDE_ENFORCE_ALL_FRAMEWORKS.

Aleix