[Kde-scm-interest] Package splitting

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 04:11:06PM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Wednesday 27. January 2010 14.01.28 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > So forget atomicity. It's not an argument.
> 
> In contrary; atomicity is the number 2 argument against  splitting up the 
> seperate kde modules.
> 
> A counter argument that [some part in kde] doesn't have atomicity with [other 
> part] would lead to it being perfectly fine to completely loose all atomicity 
> falls under the bell-curve argument.
> It doesn't apply to the subject on the table.
>
if you manage to convince me how the difference between the relations
kpat=>kdegames/libs and kpat=>kdelibs is fundamental (rather than
gradual), then you finally have *one* argument ...