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 _______________________________________________ release-team mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/release-team
