On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 15:56 +0100, Frederik Elwert wrote: > Am Freitag, den 02.03.2012, 15:28 +0100 schrieb Patrick Ohly: > > On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 15:20 +0100, Daniel CLEMENT wrote: > > I could (and mostl likely will) make the Akonadi dependency optional. > > See > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.mobile.syncevolution/3389/focus=3466 > > > > I am not sure how much that would reduce the download size. How much of > > a problem is this for you? > > I would also be uncomfortable with hard KDE dependencies. One thing is a > general scepticism against “polluting” the file system: Many GNOME users > don’t want KDE dependencies, even though this might technically be a > non-issue. A bit more severe is the question of download size, it will > simply make the installation of SyncEvolution, but also future OS > updates (those affecting the KDE libs) slower.
I was about to say that this will be only the case for packages downloaded from syncevolution.org, which are not "proper" packages anyway, only a service provided to users who don't want to wait for a distro update. But then it occurred to me that, if distros want to enable KDE support, they'll have the same problem. > If splitting the relevant code into separate modules is too much work, > and if the lack of these dependencies can be handled at runtime, maybe > having them as Suggests instead of Depends is a solution? I think > current Ubuntu installs Recommends, but not Suggests. But in Software > Center, these packages are listed as “Extensions”. There's indeed no way around this. I'll see what I can do. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
