From kde-core-devel Thu Feb 22 21:41:19 2007 From: "Richard Moore" Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 21:41:19 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: organizing kdebase Message-Id: <5491a5150702221341x307ad73rdd0814e0bb50f7a7 () mail ! gmail ! com> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=117218048816598 On 2/22/07, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On February 22, 2007, Richard Moore wrote: > > I think the issue here is more that non-KDE applications that use > > these tools to integrate into KDE should be able to depend on them to > > be present. > > that's why they are in kdebase, and not in kdebase/apps or kdebase/workspace. > > perhaps "tools" is a better word than "utils" here then; "utils" seems to > imply "miscelaneous crud" which isn't true. nor was that my intention with > this grouping. > > keeping runtime/ to mean "those applications which form the runtime > requirements of KDE applications" seems to be a good separate goal to me for > reasons i've already stated. > > would runtime/ and tools/ be more palatable, or is that just arranging deck > chairs? I think it's rearranging deck chairs. How about looking at it another way: Anything kdebase will be in one of these groups: a) Present on all platforms for KDE applications to operate b) Present to allow non-KDE apps for a particular platform to integrate c) Part of the KDE desktop environement itself a == apps b == ?? c == workspace Is this a better way of looking at things? Rich.