modular kdelibs: packagers' view
Sebastian Kügler
sebas at kde.org
Thu Jun 9 12:36:50 CEST 2011
Hi,
(cherry-picking the -- I think -- two central concerns)
On Monday, June 06, 2011 20:22:27 Heinz Wiesinger wrote:
> I can totally see how modularity in code can help there. However, I don't
> quite see why this has to affect packaging.
It doesn't *have_to*, but:
- if the split is not reflected in the packages, those are only available to
developers who build everything from source, it also effectively means the
individual frameworks become harder to use (too big compared to utility) for
3rd parties who are not primarily developing for Plasma systems
- There are basically two camps in the packagers: those who'd like to ship
smaller, more modular packages, and those who are fine with one big
monolithic thing. Both camps have good points. We can accommodate both by
providing separate sets of tarballs, monolithic ones that look like our
previous releases (post git move), and split ones that reflect the split out
structure and make them easier for separate consumption. I think that should
make everybody happy.
> Dependencies are another big issue. KDE has never been very good at
> documenting its dependencies.
This is one of the big things we've done during the Platform11 sprint, we
intevestigated everything in kdelibs, kdepimlibs, kde-runtime, kde-support and
kdepim-runtime, documenting their dependencies. (This is necessary to be able
to split them out.)
Cheers,
--
sebas
http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9
More information about the release-team
mailing list