Re: Re: kdeinit (was: Summary from Buildsystem BoF at Desktop Summit)
A Diumenge, 21 d'agost de 2011, John Layt vàreu escriure: On Saturday 20 Aug 2011 13:11:32 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: On Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 12:20:55PM +0200, Thiago Macieira wrote: It needs a global spec too, since global shortcut grabbing with X11 libs only is sorely lacking. I think the solution we made for KDE 4 is actually quite good. Anyone wants to create an XDG spec for global accelerators? well, yeah. good luck to whoever. :P We had a bad experience last time, but we should use that experience to play smarter this time around. The big complaints that I saw from Gnome last time was that we supposedly had no clear statement of why the spec was needed and what it was meant to achieve, that they had no real involvment in the drafting of the spec, that we talked to the wrong people, and that it was something they didn't need in G3. So lets turn that on its head. Lets write a statement saying why we need a spec and what it needs to achieve. Mention we have an existing solution that would be a good starting point, but don't actually detail it. Then send that to xdg and Gnome and Unity and anyone else asking who are the right pople to talk to. Hopefully those people then decide it's a good thing and agree to work together to develop a standard. If they're not interested then we get to draft it ourselves knowing there can be no complaints. But just as before, I don't see why our code can't be cross-desktop. So no argument in favour of dropping kglobalaccel. i think it is pretty clear that our *code* is not going to be accepted as the cross-desktop solution. seeing the reluctance to anything with g* within our community, why do you think the gnomers would embrace anything with a q* or even k*, esp. given that it usually weights in at least twice as much as the typical g* solution? We depend on a lot of g code these days, some of it even willingly, and we're looking at even more. As for Gnome never accepting any q/k code, it's mostly true, but copying is the sincerest form of flattery :-) Can we actually point to cases where Gnome rejected Qt/KDE code proposals, and how about ones that have been accepted (Poppler?). You really can not cound poppler as coming from our side. Poppler was started and driven by Red Hat Desktop Team (or something similar) and it was not until they lost interest (aka Red Hat relocated people to work on a different project) that real easy collaboration started to happen. Albert I'm not convinced it's really about the weight or otherwise of our solutions (system-config-printer is written in python!). How much is just C vs C++, or our not pushing stuff, or just not having key people employed by the distros? I'd like to see what happens when Qt5 has a nice light QtCore that we use to write something small and light that they need. John.
Re: Re: kdeinit (was: Summary from Buildsystem BoF at Desktop Summit)
On Saturday 20 August 2011 12:20:55 Thiago Macieira wrote: That I agree: klauncher is systemd for KDE only, so we should see about getting the same benefits from systemd instead. There are two drawbacks with that, though: 1) systemd will not likely ever run on non-Linux systems, not even the BSDs. Lennart simply isn't interested on ensuring compatibility and might even reject patches which introduce differences to Linux-specific behaviour. This is a point where we should start thinking how much sense it makes to still target non-Linux systems at all. If we can share more code and achieve more by switching to systemd and we decide to not do it and duplicate code because we want to support BSD, Solaris and $otherosnobodyuses we do IMHO a hughe mistake and harm ourselve. Systemd is not the only thing missing on non-linux, there is the complete graphics stack which is years behind (that means: Qt 5 won't support it), you still need hal, Wayland is impossible and so on and on. Given the number of bug reports and build-fix commits from non-Linux OS we receive for example in kwin there is no reason at all to target anything than Linux. Our system is fragmented enough even without supporting non-Linux systems. Summary: let's not discuss the loss of BSD support when discussing the switch to systemd. If BSD wants to still support KDE, they need to catch up fast and far. Cheers Martin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Re: kdeinit (was: Summary from Buildsystem BoF at Desktop Summit)
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 03:40:22PM +0200, Albert Astals Cid wrote: A Dimarts, 16 d'agost de 2011, Oswald Buddenhagen vàreu escriure: On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:59:18AM +0200, Thiago Macieira wrote: In my opinion, kdeinit should stay. try to convince lennart of that. when i suggested to add kdeinit-like functionality to systemd his response was no way. and if we ignore systemd, we'll lose in the longer run. So you are going to let a guy that has stated publicly that hates KDE where has he done that? and i mean literally, not according to your interpretation. decide KDE's future? it's a simple fact that gnome will determine the future of the linux desktop platform, simply because they have the people working on it and we don't. in fact, the pragmatic solution would be dropping the kde platform and concentrating on what we are good at: applications (and the underlying qt-based frameworks). and a workspace, for those 50% of our community who can believe in that plasma thingie.
Re: Re: Re: kdeinit (was: Summary from Buildsystem BoF at Desktop Summit)
A Dimarts, 16 d'agost de 2011, Oswald Buddenhagen vàreu escriure: On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 03:40:22PM +0200, Albert Astals Cid wrote: A Dimarts, 16 d'agost de 2011, Oswald Buddenhagen vàreu escriure: On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:59:18AM +0200, Thiago Macieira wrote: In my opinion, kdeinit should stay. try to convince lennart of that. when i suggested to add kdeinit-like functionality to systemd his response was no way. and if we ignore systemd, we'll lose in the longer run. So you are going to let a guy that has stated publicly that hates KDE where has he done that? and i mean literally, not according to your interpretation. decide KDE's future? it's a simple fact that gnome will determine the future of the linux desktop platform, simply because they have the people working on it and we don't. in fact, the pragmatic solution would be dropping the kde platform and concentrating on what we are good at: applications (and the underlying qt-based frameworks). and a workspace, for those 50% of our community who can believe in that plasma thingie. I can't answer to so much enthusiasm. Albert ___ Kde-buildsystem mailing list kde-buildsys...@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-buildsystem
