Preferred packaging of kdevplatform [was: Re: kdepimlibs compile requirements -- boost]
apaku at gmx.de
Tue Jul 3 08:42:44 UTC 2007
On 02.07.07 21:47:00, Matt Rogers wrote:
> On Monday 02 July 2007 18:05, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > 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?
> > No.
> Who said that the platform plugins would be packaged separately?
Me, just 2 mails ago ;)
> > > 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
> > parts.
> > Andreas
> We will package a single source tarball. Let the distributions figure out how
> they want to split the packages.
Sure, fine with me.
Tuesday After Lunch is the cosmic time of the week.
More information about the KDevelop-devel