Request for review: Okteta plugin 0.1.0 for KDevelop 4.0

[Milian Wolff]

On Wednesday, 18. August 2010 14:01:49 Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 18.08.10 12:31:59, Aleix Pol wrote:
> > > > > Since we don't want to have oktetalibs installed as a kdevelop
> > > 
> > > dependency,
> > > 
> > > > You mean both hard and optionally dependency?
> > > 
> > > Even though Aleix is one of the maintainers, I disagree with him on
> > > this. We already have an optional runtime-dep on kdesdk in
> > > kdevplatform, so IMHO it would be ok to have an optional build-time
> > > dep on kdesdk in kdevelop for the okteta-plugin. In particular because
> > > kdevelop is now in 'extragear' (well, will be again once its on
> > > git.kde.org), so there's no technical problem with that.
> > 
> > Well, the main problem I see here is that the user/packager will never be
> > sure which ones are the really important dependencies.
> 
> Uhm, thats the idea behind the macro_log_feature call in cmake, it can tell
> the user that a dependency is missing, where to get it and what is going to
> be disabled if not installing it. And packagers will simply install all
> optional dependencies anyway for building (even if they later on split the
> source package into multiple binary packages).
> 
> Personally, I've always made sure that all dependencies that I didn't know
> I won't need are installed.

I'm with Andreas here. Optional dependencies are perfectly fine and should not 
make a difference on whether to include something or not.
-- 
Milian Wolff
mail at milianw.de
http://milianw.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20100818/23d342f6/attachment.sig>