[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-windows
Subject: Re: KDE Windows and releases
From: "Vadim Peretokin" <vperetokin () gmail ! com>
Date: 2007-12-19 4:03:59
Message-ID: 6995ca080712182003r4f585443r23cd34a78ce78a08 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]
Well I'm really hoping for the packaging format, because I'm looking to port
a MUD client to windows (where it'll be a pretty good competition to the
existing similar windows programs).
On Dec 18, 2007 6:24 PM, Shane King <kde@dontletsstart.com> wrote:
> Just had a few thoughts about how KDE is going to work on Windows as a
> finished product somewhere along the line. For background, my blog post
> about Amarok Windows releases:
>
> <
> http://amarok.kde.org/blog/archives/550-Windows-binaries-and-packaging.html
> >
>
> As I see it, sometime in the not too distant future, Amarok 2 is going
> to go alpha on Linux, and we'd like to go alpha on Windows too. The
> difficulty is that you can really only have one KDE 4 installation per
> user (or at least only be running from one installation at a time), so
> to play nice with others, Amarok can't really package its own KDE
> libraries, there needs to be an "official" distribution.
>
>
> For this to happen, I think we'd need to do the following:
>
> * We need to pick a compiler. Keeping things compiling under multiple
> compilers is a good thing so we can change with circumstances, but for
> releases to work we need an official compiler.
>
> Lets be honest: MSVC compiles faster, produces smaller binaries, (IMO
> seems to) produces faster code, has a better debugging environment, is
> the standard for windows development, just works with the PSDK without
> having to write your own headers and hasn't had the lead developer quit.
> On the other hand, the politics of choosing it over mingw are difficult.
> Not sure how you decide that one, glad it's not my call. ;)
>
> * We'd need to have sort of nominal release schedule so that we can
> point people to it and say "yes, bug X is fixed and in the next release,
> we hope to have it out in 2 weeks". Of course we have very limited
> resources so we can't commit to anything concrete, but having a vague
> idea of when the next release is coming and what will be in it would be
> nice.
>
> * Maybe not straight away, but we probably also need a real packaging
> format (with thing like pre-inst/post-inst scripts etc) so third parties
> can make packages against the base system. Ideally I should be able to
> do something like make my own Amarok package and send it out to test a
> bug fix and others can just install it so long as they have the
> dependencies installed via the installer.
>
> Is porting something like dpkg or rpm even remotely possible/sensible?
> Or is it easier to just to a simpler custom implementation?
>
>
>
> Now perhaps it's too soon to start thinking about this, but just like
> KDE on Unix going to release in part because they hope it will attract
> interest, perhaps there's merit in doing the same thing on Windows?
>
> Thoughts? Has this been discussed before in the past and I've missed it?
> I did a quick google search but it didn't turn up anything quite along
> these lines.
>
> As I said on my blog post, yay for Linux and someone else having to deal
> with turning source into binaries. :p
>
> Shane.
> _______________________________________________
> Kde-windows mailing list
> Kde-windows@kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-windows
>
[Attachment #5 (text/html)]
Well I'm really hoping for the packaging format, because I'm looking to port \
a MUD client to windows (where it'll be a pretty good competition to the existing \
similar windows programs).<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"> On Dec 18, 2007 6:24 PM, \
Shane King <<a href="mailto:kde@dontletsstart.com">kde@dontletsstart.com</a>> \
wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, \
204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Just had a few thoughts about \
how KDE is going to work on Windows as a<br>finished product somewhere along the \
line. For background, my blog post<br>about Amarok Windows releases:<br><br><<a \
href="http://amarok.kde.org/blog/archives/550-Windows-binaries-and-packaging.html" \
target="_blank"> http://amarok.kde.org/blog/archives/550-Windows-binaries-and-packaging.html</a>><br><br>As \
I see it, sometime in the not too distant future, Amarok 2 is going<br>to go alpha on \
Linux, and we'd like to go alpha on Windows too. The <br>difficulty is that you \
can really only have one KDE 4 installation per<br>user (or at least only be running \
from one installation at a time), so<br>to play nice with others, Amarok can't \
really package its own KDE <br>libraries, there needs to be an "official" \
distribution.<br><br><br>For this to happen, I think we'd need to do the \
following:<br><br>* We need to pick a compiler. Keeping things compiling under \
multiple <br>compilers is a good thing so we can change with circumstances, but \
for<br>releases to work we need an official compiler.<br><br>Lets be honest: MSVC \
compiles faster, produces smaller binaries, (IMO<br>seems to) produces faster code, \
has a better debugging environment, is <br>the standard for windows development, just \
works with the PSDK without<br>having to write your own headers and hasn't had \
the lead developer quit.<br>On the other hand, the politics of choosing it over mingw \
are difficult. <br>Not sure how you decide that one, glad it's not my call. \
;)<br><br>* We'd need to have sort of nominal release schedule so that we \
can<br>point people to it and say "yes, bug X is fixed and in the next release, \
<br>we hope to have it out in 2 weeks". Of course we have very \
limited<br>resources so we can't commit to anything concrete, but having a \
vague<br>idea of when the next release is coming and what will be in it would be \
<br>nice.<br><br>* Maybe not straight away, but we probably also need a real \
packaging<br>format (with thing like pre-inst/post-inst scripts etc) so third \
parties<br>can make packages against the base system. Ideally I should be able to \
<br>do something like make my own Amarok package and send it out to test a<br>bug fix \
and others can just install it so long as they have the<br>dependencies installed via \
the installer.<br><br>Is porting something like dpkg or rpm even remotely \
possible/sensible? <br>Or is it easier to just to a simpler custom \
implementation?<br><br><br><br>Now perhaps it's too soon to start thinking about \
this, but just like<br>KDE on Unix going to release in part because they hope it will \
attract <br>interest, perhaps there's merit in doing the same thing on \
Windows?<br><br>Thoughts? Has this been discussed before in the past and I've \
missed it?<br>I did a quick google search but it didn't turn up anything quite \
along <br>these lines.<br><br>As I said on my blog post, yay for Linux and someone \
else having to deal<br>with turning source into binaries. \
:p<br><br>Shane.<br>_______________________________________________<br>Kde-windows \
mailing list <br><a href="mailto:Kde-windows@kde.org">Kde-windows@kde.org</a><br><a \
href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-windows" \
target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-windows</a><br></blockquote></div><br>
_______________________________________________
Kde-windows mailing list
Kde-windows@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-windows
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic