Preferred packaging of kdevplatform [was: Re: kdepimlibs compile requirements -- boost]

Andreas Pakulat apaku at
Mon Jul 2 23:05:57 UTC 2007

Moving this over to kdevelop list.

On 03.07.07 01:39:17, Andras Mantia wrote:
> On Monday 02 July 2007, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > > Otherwise we will end with binary packages for kdevplatform which
> > > will depend on boost. I'm sure I don't want to see that.
> >
> > Thats wrong. The plugins of the platform need to packaged separately
> > and thus only those plugin package(s) would have a dependecy on
> > boost. Apart from that its (IIRC) just 2 boost libs that are
> > installed and I think quite some users might have installed them
> > anyway.
> This is the first time I heard that the platform plugins should be 
> packaged separately. Is this documented so packagers actually know it 
> that this is what we want?


> Is this what we want?

I don't know. Its just something I actually think makes sense. Maybe not
all plugins would be in a separate package, for example a kdevplatform
application without outputview plugin or projectmanagerview is pretty
useless. OTOH stuff like svn,cvs and teamwork are things that are in
platform so not every app using the platform has to "reinvent" them or
depend on another app just for these plugins. So I'm thinking we should
tell packagers a plugin list that needs to be installed always and the
rest can be packaged separately and the user can decide wether he wants
them or not.

> I actually thought that kdevplatform is there as it is just because
> everything inside there is useful - to not say mandatory - for every
> application using the platform interface and libraries. So it actually
> makes sense to provide one package as it is.

See above, I'd still split it into mandatory and optional-but-useful


You would if you could but you can't so you won't.

More information about the KDevelop-devel mailing list