Am Freitag, 3. Juni 2011, 21:06:17 schrieb ian.monroe@gmail.com: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 14:01, Harald Sitter wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:40 PM, ian.monroe@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 13:35, Harald Sitter wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:18 PM, ian.monroe@gmail.com > >>> wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:02, Harald Sitter wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:59 PM, ian.monroe@gmail.com [...] > >>>>> So we > >>>>> might as well split proper. It does not make much difference whether > >>>>> we expand to 5 or 13 repos really. > >>>> > >>>> Well people complain a lot, see the latest thread on release-team. I > >>>> think making the dep tree very simple is a good thing and not hard to > >>>> do. I have now read the "git migration, next steps" thread. After that the situation doesn't seem to be so easy. What I see is that Distributors have valid arguments against a split. I'll try to summarize the thread as neutral/balanced as possible: If I understand correctly, one of the issues would be if the change is sudden and not announced ahead long enough. From http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/2011-June/004875.html: > Rex Dieter/Fedora: "Seems to me, git repo splits were done only > for convenience of > developers (and rightly so), but without any forethought to the > implications that had on source distribution and packagers. The > latter ought to be well-planned and discussed ahead-of-time, > not rushed in as an afterthought." http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/2011-June/004867.html > "Split tarballs *after* migrations are final and where it can be > carefully planned and executed would be more welcome, say for kde-4.8." This issue can easily be avoided, by announcing early enough. > >>> It was pointed out by fedora and kubuntu packagers that it makes much > >>> sense to have kdemm split. Are you sure about Fedora? From http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/2011-June/004869.html: > Kevin Kofler/Fedora: "In fact, the main Red Hat KDE packager (Than Ngo) > has also expressed his unhappiness about the split tarballs in the > Fedora KDE SIG discussions." And in http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/2011-June/004884.html: > Kevin Kofler/Fedora: "Our policy so far has been to only split > where there is a concrete need for it." And in http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/2011-June/004877.html: > Kevin Kofler/Fedora: > "more burden", "less flexibility" > "it is only possible to build multiple binary subpackages from > one source package and not the other way round" > "Doing split binary packages in turn has other problems, e.g. > huge update metadata when we push a new version" Other statements: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/2011-June/004868.html: > Jeremy Whiting/Slackware: "I fired up this discussion on my blog > and the SLackware > forum a few hours ago... Slackware will have to consider dropping KDE > if we are confronted with source fragmentation. We are a small team > and can not accept the added burden of maintaining a fragmented KDE > based desktop environment." Summary of concerns in http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/2011- June/004874.html: > Raphael Kubo da Costa/kde-packager: > * Adding new packages (SRPMs or whatever) is slow in some distros; > * Fear that new tarballs will be released without proper instructions > or not following any criteria, so that creating packages and > following the dependencies gets harder. There are also some arguments for splitting: > Jeremy Whiting/SUN-Port: "I'm porting KDE to Solaris. We often > face difficulties compiling either due to compiler (Sun Studio) > or OS differences. The split will actually make it easier to make > most of KDE available in time [...] There is a proposed compromise solution, but this makes more work for the kde- release team. http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/release-team/2011-June/004868.html > Eric Hameleers/Slackware: I would feel very relieved if the > old monolithic tarballs would stay as a download option. > Even if the release team maintains a series of scripts > that makes a controlled checkout of monolithic tarballs > possible for packagers, that would be an acceptible solution. I am not sure any longer whether splitting is worth the trouble. I am getting the impression that it could also effectively lead to an even more fragmented kde-multimedia. Greetings, Christian _______________________________________________ kde-multimedia mailing list kde-multimedia@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-multimedia