[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: what packages do we want distros to ship ?
From:       Alexander Neundorf <neundorf () kde ! org>
Date:       2008-12-23 7:00:30
Message-ID: 200812230800.30943.neundorf () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tuesday 23 December 2008, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Monday 22 December 2008, Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > My guess is that it's somewhere in between, e.g. whole kdelibs,
>
> kdelibs could probably be broken out a bit, in particular:
>
> * the libs that have no deps on KDE could be packaged individually, making
> it easy for 3rd party apps to depend on them alone:
> 	* solid
> 	* threadweaver
> 	* phonon (ok, not part of kdelibs anymore, but you get the idea =)
>
> * the core kdelibs: core, ui, kio/kfile, kded, knewstuff, etc... libs that
> are so commonly used and which make kde apps kde apps.
>
> * non-core significant libs could be packaged on their own:
> 	* khtml+kjs
> 	* plasma
> 	* kross
> 	* kformula

I agree so far. Only issue is that kdelibs builds a little bit different, so 
it may be not too trivial to build something coming from kdelibs as a 
separate package.
>
> kdebase should probably be split into:
>
> * runtime; there's no point in having only part of this. the whole idea is
> that these are the things apps must be able to rely on being there.
>
> * workspace; maybe a libs+apps split, but this again makes most sense to me
> as an atomic unit

I agree here too. The thing is, Gentoo wants to package (and build and 
install) each lib from workspace separately, and supporting this would 
require some work from the cmake side, where I'm not sure it makes a lot of 
sense.

> * apps: libs in one package (libkonq), applications individually
> packagable: konq, dolphin, konsole, etc
>
> for the other modules, i imagine it makes sense to do full package or
> individual apps.

I also agree

Alex
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]