Move kwalletmanager?

[Tobias Gerschner]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tobias Gerschner <tobias.gerschner at gmail.com>
Date: 14.01.2008 11:59
Subject: Re: release-team Digest, Vol 13, Issue 28
To: release-team at kde.org


> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 12:44:41 +0100
> From: Olivier Goffart <ogoffart at bepointbe.be>
> Subject: Re: Move kwalletmanager?
> To: KDE release coordination <release-team at kde.org>
> Message-ID: <200801121244.47316.ogoffart at bepointbe.be>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"


> Le jeudi 10 janvier 2008, Riccardo Iaconelli a ?crit?:
> > On Jan 10, 2008 7:50 PM, Allen Winter <winter at kde.org> wrote:
> > > On Thursday 10 January 2008 13:42:50 Urs Wolfer wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 10 January 2008 19:29:39 Stephan Binner wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday 10 January 2008 15:37:33 Allen Winter wrote:
> > > > > > The kwallet seems like a critical app that should always be
> > >
> > > available
> > >
> > > > > > in our base system.
> > > > >
> > > > > More critical than kmix? :-) Wanting to say, kmix belongs there too
> > >
> > > imo.
> > >
> > > > Yes, I agree. Both kwalletmanager and kmix belong to kdebase.
> > > > I think kdebase/runtime would be the correct place for these.
> > >
> > > I suggested kdebase/apps instead of kdebase/runtime because
> > > moving anything into runtime causes a co-installability issue
> > > that I'm sure one of the packagers will yell about.
> > >
> > > But either one of those locations is better than kdeutils IMO.
> >
> > Agreed, and personally I'm for kwallet in runtime/, it is a runtime
> > dependency to me,
> > while kmix can probably fit well into apps/.
>
> KMix is a muldimedia application, and so belongs to kdemultimedia.
>
> > > I almost think that ark, kcalc, kgpg, kfloppy, and sweeper
> > > could go into kdebase as well.
> >
> > Agreed for ark (it's a shame that we don't have an unzipper in a basic
> > installation),
>
> I disagree...
> KDE is the set of all applications in every modules. And a basic installation
> would include all main modules.
>
> I would say it is a shame to don't have a mail client in a basic installation.
>
> for me, ark can stay to kdeutils.
>
> > but not for the other ones, they belong to kdeutils IMHO (that's why the
> > module exist).
>
>
> IMO, we should not try to move things to kdebase,  but maybe even the other
> way around.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>

[resent with adjusted topic]

Hi,


For a start just to state the obvious: IMO there are many different
definitions of
kdebase used by everyone in that discussion.  It would certainly be
helpful to define the feature set the KDE Team wants to have in
kdebase. Then take this feature set to decide what has to go into
which module. For a start this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kdebase is
actually good. Defining a concept quick and precisely.

I like KDE for it's completeness. From a maintenance / packaging point
of view KDE is the easiest desktop environment possible. With only a
very few packages compiled you have this wonderful and powerful
desktop environment that I would not want to miss. However I also
think that there are already too many applications in kdebase by
default.  ( Just my 2 cents )

Kdebase should indeed provide you with a ( basic ) desktop. But
further features should really be in the respective modules. So from
my point of view neither mail nor volume really belong into kdebase .
My personal idea about a kdebase would be a 'kdesktop' strictly
bundling applications for the desktop with very limited concessions
what else to include.

I strongly concur with Oliver.  But as mentioned above it certainly
would be helpful to step back and think about the module structure
that KDE has at the moment. And please don't bash me for saying that
directly after the 4.0.0 release.

regards

--
Tobias Gerschner
Yoper Linux - www.yoper.com

Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.