[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]