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

List:       kde-kimageshop
Subject:    Re: Splitting the calligra repository
From:       Jaroslaw Staniek <staniek () kde ! org>
Date:       2014-08-18 19:43:26
Message-ID: CAOj7QQ3QtZg-fu0pQMUVZe1wFPcbtRFOTpPHk15yEqvmYDrvCA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi,
After reading through the discussion I see packagers may be interested
in tarball layouts rather than git layouts.
As we discussed at the sprint, big changes are coming with the Qt 5
port and we take this opportunity to fix/break things. If there's any
splitting of code that I am maintaining, it is going to happen within
these changes, not before, for just one minor 2.9 version.

Even given large resources (which we lack), I afraid of "unplanned"
breaks in packaging for one minor version in some distributions. I
experienced this with two distros in 2.8 with Kexi. Let's face it, few
packagers actually run our apps (or functional tests) and/or we lack
these tests.

That said, I am even a bit afraid of splitting the tarball for 2.9. If
this delays our release, that's a risk.

@Boud It's great to hear feedback from Jonathan, so what are exactly
advantages of layout changes in the minor version, and what is hard to
package (other than long rebuilds) if we stay conservative for one
more minor release, given there are quite mature specs since 2.0-2.8
already? I am a bit unsure because we do not intend to publish APIs or
so in 2.9 so the specs would stay similar to 2.8.
There were build system changes thanks to the cmake productsets, but
does it count?

I guess we did not hear what other distros say, like opensuse or
gentoo. In 2.9 they would see a few tarballs instead of one,
"suddenly". Then in 3.0, again, different tarballs for some
components.


On 18 August 2014 09:56, Boudewijn Rempt <boud@valdyas.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know we sort of decided to only do this after 2.9, but I just picked up
> Jonathan Riddell's discussion on irc on how our current repository and
> release makes life harder for packagers -- basically a split up repo would
> be easier, apparently.
>
> What would be a good split, though. My first idea would be something like
> this, but devtools and extras are making things rather messy.
>
> calligra-base
>         libs
>                 basicflakes
>                 flake
>                 koplugin
>                 kotext
>                 kundo2
>                 main
>                 odf
>                 pigment
>                 textlayout
>                 vectorimage
>                 widgets
>                 widgetutils
>         plugins
>         devtools
>         extras
>
> calligra-extended
>         db
>         kokross
>         koproperty
>         koreport
>
> office
>         libs
>                 kopageapp
>                 rdf
>         words
>         stage
>         sheets
>         karbon
>         flow
>         filters
>
> kexi
> plan
> krita
>
> And this already creates _six_ repos -- if we'd split up even more, the
> number of repositories goes crazy...
>
>
> Boudewijn
>
> _______________________________________________
> calligra-devel mailing list
> calligra-devel@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel



-- 
regards / pozdrawiam, Jaroslaw Staniek
 Kexi & Calligra & KDE | http://calligra.org/kexi | http://kde.org
 Qt for Tizen | http://qt-project.org/wiki/Tizen
 Qt Certified Specialist | http://www.linkedin.com/in/jstaniek
_______________________________________________
Krita mailing list
kimageshop@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kimageshop
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]