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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: kdesupport: let's get rid of it, now.
From:       Michael Brade <Michael.Brade () informatik ! uni-muenchen ! de>
Date:       2001-05-30 13:55:08
[Download RAW message or body]

Hehe, three at once ;-)

On Wednesday 30 May 2001 15:28, Matthias Elter wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 May 2001 15:15, Michael Brade wrote:
> > On Wednesday 30 May 2001 15:04, Rob Kaper wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 02:52:00PM +0200, Nikolas Zimmermann wrote:
> > > > hell no!
> > > > not yet another lib to depend on
> > >
> > > We already depend on it. But it's nonsense to ship all our
> > > dependencies. What's wrong with simply saying "hey, you need this" to
> > > the user who runs ./configure?
> >
> > Well, we would end up with the same dependency crap GNOME has. You'd like
> > to just install kdelibs and now you find you'll need to download 5 other
> > packages with their own dependencies. That's _really_ frustrating. I know
> > we can't ship every lib with KDE but I think it's ok to have the small
> > ones included.
>
> But lets be consistent, we don't ship libxml2 but depend on it. So either
> import a copy of libxml2 to kdesupport or get rid of kdesupport.
>
> IMHO we should get rid of kdesupport, we don't depend on _that_ many
> libraries.
Hmm, at least libpcre, libxml2, libxslt, mimelib and finally Qt (doesn't 
count thou). But you're right, seems not to be too much.


On Wednesday 30 May 2001 15:26, Rob Kaper wrote:
> > Well, we would end up with the same dependency crap GNOME has.
>
> I doubt it. It's not like I want to make seperate releases of kde-kio,
> kde-dcop etcetera, which is more like what the GNOMEs are doing.
Ok, agreed.

> > You'd like to just install kdelibs and now you find you'll need to
> > download 5 other packages with their own dependencies. That's _really_
> > frustrating. I know we can't ship every lib with KDE but I think it's ok
> > to have the small ones included.
>
> What if I already have those installed on my system? Newer, leaner and
> better versions even?
That's what I thought as well - the other way round: if we ship our own 
version we would always have the version we require and perhaps even always 
the latest one. If the user had to update regularly himself I doubt that. On 
the other hand the libs we depend on don't change that often...

> Perhaps a better solution would be to include them
> but not use them by default (system installed libraries have preference).
> If a system lib is found, we'll use it, if not, we'll prompt the user to
> install it (as proposed) _or_ to add --use-included-libblah to use the one
> we're including.
Sounds good. It's the way Qt is going.

> That way we have the good stuff of including them (ease of use) but not the
> bad stuff (possibly messing up libraries already installed).
Yup.

Ciao,
   Michael

-- 

       Some operating systems are called `user friendly',
             Linux however is `expert friendly'.

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