On Wednesday 27 January 2010 13:51:10 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 12:38:21PM +0100, Thomas Zander wrote: > > I've had too many accusations of breaking the build in koffice just > > because the user updated only his app and forgot to type 'svn update' in > > the libraries. > > well, quite frankly: tough luck. for him. the advantage of non-atomicity > is that the user has the *option* to do only a partial update, at his > own risk. not everyone has a compile cluster at his fingertips to always > pull everything without thinking much about it. > > if you extrapolate your argument (which would be just logical, as > kdebase devs are often enough accused of breaking the build by adding > dependencies on recent kdelibs functionality), it would mean that the > entire KDE/ needs to be in one repository. i think you agree that this > too absurd to even consider.
Why stop there? How about some dependencies we have? Just say sip and pykde4 and qscriptgenerator libexiv and poppler and ... I more than once fail to compile code because someone decided to depend on a more recent version of some stuff outside of our repository. We would have much less problems if people building kde would automatically get the corresponding version of those. But i will give this is only in theory a good idea. Mike > > _______________________________________________ > Kde-scm-interest mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
