On Tuesday, February 1, 2011, Alexander Neundorf wrote: > I can remember that a point of criticism about gnome was that it is hard to > get it built correctly with all the relatively small independent libs. > I think we are moving in that direction... > Are we aware of this and is this ok with us ?
yes, i am aware of this; and no, i'm not personally ok with it :) if this is to work, we absolutely must find solutions that ballance the benefits of greater modularity with ease of build. there are many possible answers (better build tools; keeping things within the same repositories but with more modular builds within those repostories; relying on packaging instead of upstream tarballs for the modularization) and lots of details to get "right" (e.g. how to deal with dependencies pulled in at runtime via kde- runtime) i think it is innevitable that we will need to compromise in places to find our optimal mix. it is not a trivial set of questions. we do not, however, need to have an answer today. we have a Platform meeting in June, and we can use the months leading up to that to play around with different scenarios, tugging at the threads to find complications that arise (as we are doing in this thread) and try to have a very good overall picture by the time that in person meeting happens. it's great that we are aware of and thinking about these knock-on effects. it'll take longer than just charging headlong forward, but we will come out with a good solid "KDE" solution as a result... -- Aaron J. Seigo humru othro a kohnu se GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43 KDE core developer sponsored by Qt Development Frameworks
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
