[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-devel
Subject: Re: pkg-config, glib2 etc.
From: Mosfet <dan.duley () verizon ! net>
Date: 2003-03-16 21:43:10
[Download RAW message or body]
Okay, this sounds reasonable as long as it doesn't add an additional
dependency. I think it would be preferable for a standard package management
system not to require a third-party container library, nonetheless. Did these
guys forget how to code in standard C? ;-)
Really, the thing we need to be more concerned about are things used by the
core KDE API, not what you need to build it. Pkg-config doesn't add any
additional requirements to the KDE runtime if I am correct, so if it uses
statically linked dependencies it's not too big a deal as long as it includes
everything it needs. It's self contained and doesn't bloat the KDE
architecture itself. This is different from Arts, where even linking to
yet-another-container-library statically bloats the entire environment. The
same would apply to IPC systems, etc...
This is reasonable for pkg-config, but not preferable. It would be preferable
for standard components to use standard C or C++. I know it's probably
convienent for GTK coders to use Glib, I know I am always wanting to use Qt
templates whenever I am writing non-Qt C++ code, but I wouldn't do that if I
was trying to get something accepted as a desktop neutral standard. It
worries me that the standards being pushed by freedesktop.org went from
specifications that people can implement efficently for either desktop to
requiring more and more GTK/Gnome depedencies. Havoc, et al. just assumes
it's okay.
KDE really needs to set limits on what and what is not acceptable in it's core
packages. I personally do not see the reason why we need something above the
standard automake/autoconf process and people really need to be reigned in
regards to how many things they are going to require for core KDE components
and if they really add a big enough benefit to KDE as a whole.
On Sunday 16 March 2003 3:28 pm, George Staikos wrote:
> On Sunday 16 March 2003 16:04, Mosfet wrote:
> > Opps, apparently I was wrong. When Havoc stated "There's nothing
> > desktop-specific or desktop-related about pkg-config" on it's website I
> > assumed it wasn't glib based. Turns out it is. This means using
> > pkg-config also would require KDE to have glib, right? This is not
> > desktop neutral software.
>
> It has its own internal glib. Based on our conversation with Havoc and
> something that I brought up, I think the plan is for freedesktop.org to
> work towards providing a generic, minimal package with only the common
> elements to all desktops. pkg-config would be included. Therefore I don't
> see the internal glib disappearing. I wouldn't be too worried about it; at
> least not now.
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic