On 01.02.11 01:18:58, Pino Toscano wrote: > Alle martedì 1 febbraio 2011, Aaron J. Seigo ha scritto: > > > The concern that I have, on the other hand, is whether this can be > > > done in a source and binary compatible fashion. I just took a look > > > at > > > > yes, it can. and i don't believe anything in kdelibs itself uses it. > > khtml does (but we know very few people care about it).
Indeed the debugger does use it, that is a problem as it creates a hen-egg-problem. > Apart from that, this move is a bit of "suprise" for whoever compiles > kdelibs from sources, and gets no KTextEditor by default anymore (after > years and years). The same goes for the katepart, which means you now > have to install something additional, instead of relying on what kdelibs > provided for years? Looks like a bit of source compatibility breaking, > at least IMHO. Thats nothing really new in KDE land, our SC constantly gets new dependencies that one needs to fetch and build. With all the movements to git various repositories already split themselves up (polkit, phonon) and so far people seem to have been able to adjust to that. No idea wether the 'promo' around such changes was the cause for that or wether only packagers were affected as most people get the packages from their distro, but I haven't seen huge fallout so far because of such changes. > > * it would be an interesting and useful experiment with modularization > > of kdelibs > > I don't think taking out random pieces of kdelibs piece-by-piece is > something useful to do over time: either you split the whole at once, or > you don't. As there's not even a clear idea of where to split kdelibs, this request is just a different way of saying "don't do it". Not to mention the amount of work necessary to do such a modularization at once. Andreas -- You plan things that you do not even attempt because of your extreme caution.
