On Saturday 06 February 2010, Ian Monroe wrote: > 2010/2/6 Thiago Macieira <[email protected]>: > > Em Sábado 6. Fevereiro 2010, às 23.16.25, Ingo Klöcker escreveu: > >> On Saturday 06 February 2010, Patrick J. Volkerding wrote: > >> > Please don't ruin KDE. Having a reasonable number of source > >> > tarballs is one of KDE's greatest strengths. It's nice to see > >> > a project of KDE's complexity that can be compiled by a > >> > technically-inclined end user, and not only by the project's > >> > developers (or people who are nearly so). > >> > >> The number of tarballs we provide is largely unrelated to the > >> number of Git repos we split KDE SVN into. We can easily put the > >> content of several Git repos into one larger tarball. So for > >> distros using tarballs (i.e. all binary distros AFAIK) nothing > >> has to change. But the distros could choose to use the smaller > >> per Git repo tarballs which we should also provide. That's up to > >> the distro to decide. > > > > No, we can't do that. > > > > The moment that we start splitting the repositories, the > > CMakeLists.txt files will start to drift. It will be impossible to > > do in-module and out-of-module builds with the same source code. > > It's possible, but it is a pain to maintain. This was the situation > that Amarok 2 was in for its years in extragear/multimedia SVN. We > basically only supported checking out Amarok by itself, but the ten > people who built it from multimedia would be annoyed whenever we > broke things for them.
Damn. I thought it was easy. :-( Regards, Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
